School Placement in Initial Teacher Education...School Placement in Initial Teacher Education...

SCHOOL

PLACEMENT IN

INITIAL

TEACHER

EDUCATION FINAL REPORT

Professor Kathy Hall, Dr Regina Murphy, Dr Vanessa Rutherford, Dr Bernadette

Ní Áingléis

2018

School Placement in Initial Teacher Education

School Placement

in

Initial Teacher Education

Final Report

Professor Kathy Hall, Dr Regina Murphy, Dr Vanessa Rutherford, Dr Bernadette Ní

Áingléis

University College Cork

Dublin City University


2

© Kathy Hall, Regina Murphy, Vanessa Rutherford, Bernadette Ní Áingléis

(2018)


DISCLAIMER

The research described in this report was funded by the Teaching Council of Ireland.

Principal Investigator for the project was Professor Kathy Hall, School of Education,

University College Cork. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors,

and do not necessarily reflect the views or policy of the Teaching Council.

School of Education, University College Cork (UCC)

http://www.ucc.ie/en/education/




4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The study was commissioned by the Teaching Council. The authors are very grateful

to Carmel Kearns, Catherine Brewer, Phil Fox and Conor Mellon who gave advice

and feedback during the course of the study. The project also gained from feedback

from the Teaching Council’s Education Committee as well as from HEI tutors,

principals and teachers at various information events and meetings over the last three

years.

We are very grateful to the school principals, co-operating teachers, student teachers,

and HEI tutors who took part in interviews and who completed questionnaires.

Thanks too to tutors and student teachers who allowed us to observe debriefing

sessions.

We wish to acknowledge the support of a number of colleagues who contributed to

the study: Alicia Curtin, Mary Horgan, Finn Ó Murchú (UCC) and Marie Flynn

(DCU) who conducted fieldwork; Alicia Curtin and Catherine Mulryan-Kyne who

contributed to an earlier, interim review of literature; and Ellen O’Connor, Ronan

Fitzpatrick and Wesley O’Brien (UCC) who supported the statistical work. Thanks

also to Alan Gorman (DCU) for advice on several aspects and for sourcing some key

research studies for the literature review. Thanks also to Angela Desmond, School

Manager in the School of Education, UCC for her support over the life of the project.

May 2018


TABLE OF CONTENTS DISCLAIMER ......................................................................................................................................... 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 4

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................................... 8

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.............................................................................................................................. 9

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 10

CONTEXT ............................................................................................................................................... 10

THE STUDY ............................................................................................................................................ 10

MAIN FINDINGS FROM THE LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................... 11

MAIN FINDINGS FROM THE EMPIRICAL STUDY .............................................................................................. 12

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 18

1.1 OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................................... 18

1.2 BACKGROUND TO THE CHANGES ........................................................................................................... 18

1.3 THE CHANGES: NEW POLICY ON SP ...................................................................................................... 19

1.4 IMPLEMENTATION AND BEDDING DOWN OF THE CHANGES ........................................................................ 21

1.5 PLAN OF THE REPORT ......................................................................................................................... 21

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................................................... 23

2.1 RECENT IRISH RESEARCH ..................................................................................................................... 24

2.2 SIGNIFICANCE OF SCHOOL-HEI PARTNERSHIP ......................................................................................... 25

2.3 STUDENT TEACHERS AS REFLECTIVE PRACTITIONERS RESEARCHING THEIR PRACTICE........................................ 35

2.4 PARTICIPATIVE DISCUSSION ABOUT TEACHING AND LEARNING: LESSON STUDY .............................................. 37

2.5 PARTICIPATIVE DISCUSSION ABOUT TEACHING AND LEARNING: PAIRED AND MULTIPLE PLACEMENTS ................ 38

2.6 PARTICIPATIVE DISCUSSION ABOUT TEACHING AND LEARNING: LEARNING IN NETWORKS THOUGH ENQUIRY ....... 40

2.7 OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES IN SCHOOL-HEI PARTNERSHIPS ............................................................. 41

2.8 RELATIONALITY, EMOTIONALITY AND COMMUNICATION ........................................................................... 43

2.9. STUDENT TEACHER PERSPECTIVES ........................................................................................................ 45

2.10. RECOGNISING TENSIONS AND THE NEED FOR CPD FOR ALL .................................................................... 47

2.11. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................. 49

CHAPTER 3: MODELS OF SCHOOL PLACEMENT: FEATURES OF INTEREST .......................................... 52

3.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 52

3.2 REGULATION, LEGISLATION AND AUTONOMY .......................................................................................... 52

3.3 LOCUS OF DECISION MAKING IN RELATION TO SP ..................................................................................... 53

3.4 DETAILS OF REQUIREMENTS: FROM GENERAL TO PARTICULAR ..................................................................... 54

3.5 DURATION, SEQUENCE AND PROGRESSION OF SCHOOL PLACEMENT ............................................................ 55

3.6 RANGE AND DIVERSITY OF EXPERIENCES ................................................................................................. 58

3.7 STUDENT TEACHER TASKS AND RESPONSIBILITIES ...................................................................................... 58

3.8 SUPERVISION, ASSESSMENT AND FEEDBACK ............................................................................................ 59

3.9 ROLES OF CO-OPERATING TEACHERS, HEIS TUTORS AND OTHERS ................................................................ 60

3.10 OTHER IDIOSYNCRATIC FEATURES OF SCHOOL PLACEMENT PRACTICE, POLICY ETC. OF INTEREST ........................ 61

3.11 SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................... 62

CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH DESIGN ........................................................................................................ 63

4.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 63

4.2 SCALE AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY .......................................................................................................... 63

4.3 LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................................................... 69

4.4 ROUNDS 1 AND 2 FIELDWORK: SAMPLING, INSTRUMENT DESIGN, PILOTING ................................................. 69


6

4.5 ROUND 1 AND 2 FIELDWORK: DATA GATHERING PROCEDURE IN MAIN CASE SETTINGS ................................... 70

4.6 RESPONSE RATES AND ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ........................................................................................ 73

4.7 DATA MANAGEMENT AND ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................... 74

4.8 BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS ..................................................................................... 74

4.9 QUALITY ASSURANCE, ETHICS, DILEMMAS ............................................................................................. 75

CHAPTER 5: GUIDANCE, OBSERVATION, ASSESSMENT, GRADING AND QUALITY ASSURANCE ......... 77

5.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 77

5.2 OVERVIEW OF TIME ON SP, NUMBER OF LESSONS TAUGHT AND TUTOR VISITS ............................................. 77

5.3 FEEDBACK TEMPLATES, RUBRICS AND CRITERIA ....................................................................................... 84

5.4 CRITICAL REFLECTION AND LINKS WITH OBSERVATION .............................................................................. 86

5.5 OPPORTUNITIES TO OBSERVE TEACHERS TEACH ...................................................................................... 89

5.6 NATURE AND SOURCES OF GUIDANCE AND VARIATION OF FEEDBACK: HEI TUTORS AND CTS ........................... 92

5.7 HEI TUTOR AND CT COMMUNICATION ABOUT ST PROGRESS ..................................................................... 99

5.8 THE DEBRIEF AS A PIVOTAL VEHICLE FOR INTEGRATING FORMATIVE AND SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND

INTEGRATING THEORY AND PRACTICE ........................................................................................................ 101

5.9 SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND GRADING ............................................................................................ 102

5.10 ROLE OF CT IN GRADING ................................................................................................................ 104

5.11 BENEFITS OF THE EXTENDED DURATION AND CONTRASTING SP .............................................................. 108

5.12 QUALITY ASSURANCE: CONSISTENCY IN SUPPORTING AND INTERPRETING STUDENT PERFORMANCE .............. 110

5.13 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ 113

CHAPTER 6: SECURING PLACEMENTS AND SCHOOL-HEI PARTNERSHIPS ........................................ 116

6.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 116

6.2 PARTNERSHIP AND PROCEDURES FOR SECURING PLACEMENTS ................................................................. 116

6.3 SOME INNOVATIVE PRACTICES ........................................................................................................... 118

6.4 DIFFICULTIES IN SECURING PLACEMENTS .............................................................................................. 120

6.5 INFORMALITY AND HISTORY CHARACTERIZING PARTNERSHIP .................................................................... 122

6.6 PROBLEMS, CHALLENGES AND DILEMMAS ............................................................................................ 125

6.7 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................. 129

CHAPTER 7: PERSPECTIVES OF COOPERATING TEACHERS, PRINCIPALS AND DEPUTY PRINCIPALS .. 131

7.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 131

7.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE DATA FROM COOPERATING TEACHERS ..................................................................... 131

7.3 KNOWLEDGE OF THE TEACHING COUNCIL POLICY................................................................................... 131

7.4 POLICY FOR ACCEPTING A STUDENT TEACHER ........................................................................................ 132

7.5 AWARENESS OF A FORMAL PARTNERSHIP .............................................................................................. 133

7.6 PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION FOR THE ROLE ......................................................................................... 133

7.7 CLASSROOM PRACTICE WITH STUDENT TEACHERS ................................................................................... 135

7.8 AVAILING OF DISCRETIONARY TIME ...................................................................................................... 136

7.9 ENGAGING IN DIALOGUE WITH THE HEI TUTOR ..................................................................................... 137

7.10 ROLE OF THE CT IN ASSESSMENT AND GRADING .................................................................................. 139

7.11 FORMAL GRADING ......................................................................................................................... 141

7.12 COOPERATING TEACHERS’ VIEWS OF HOW THEY SEE THEMSELVES PROFESSIONALLY ..................................... 142

7.13 FUTURE CPD FOR THE ROLE OF THE CT .............................................................................................. 144

7.14 BENEFITS OF EXTENDED PERIOD OF SCHOOL PLACEMENT INCLUDING THE 10-WEEK BLOCK .......................... 145

7.14 DEPUTY PRINCIPALS’ AND PRINCIPALS’ VIEWS OF SP ............................................................................ 147

7.15 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ 151

CHAPTER 8: STUDENT TEACHER PERSPECTIVES ON SP ................................................................... 152

8.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 152


8.2 INTEGRATION OF THEORY & PRACTICE, SELF-EFFICACY, EMOTIONALITY ..................................................... 152

8.3 EXTENDED SP: BELONGING AND CONTRIBUTING TO THE LIFE OF THE SCHOOL ............................................. 154

8.4 CONTINUOUS AND BLOCK COMPARED ................................................................................................. 156

8.5 OBSERVING, BEING OBSERVED AND BEING ASSESSED ............................................................................. 157

8.6 PLANNING, EVALUATING AND REFLECTING ........................................................................................... 160

8.7 EXPENSE AND PRESSURE OF WORK ..................................................................................................... 162

8.8 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................. 163

CHAPTER 9: ILLUSTRATIONS OF GOOD PRACTICE ........................................................................... 164

9.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 164

9.2 THE VIGNETTES ............................................................................................................................... 164

VIGNETTE 1: ORCHARD VIEW PRIMARY SCHOOL AND METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY: A PARTNERSHIP IN PROFESSIONAL

DEVELOPMENT FOR SP ........................................................................................................................... 165

VIGNETTE 2: FOREST VIEW PRIMARY SCHOOL AND BIRCHWOOD UNIVERSITY COLLEGE: A COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE

......................................................................................................................................................... 167

VIGNETTE 3: STUDENT TEACHERS (PRIMARY) LEADING TEACHER LEARNING ..................................................... 170

VIGNETTE 4: SEAVIEW POST-PRIMARY SCHOOL AND OCEAN UNIVERSITY ......................................................... 173

VIGNETTE 5: LATTICE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY FOR SCHOOLS (POST-PRIMARY) ............................................ 175

VIGNETTE 6: ON DIALOGUE (POST-PRIMARY): MENTORING AND TEACHING ACADEMY .................................... 178

CHAPTER 10: CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 184

10.1 CONTEXT ..................................................................................................................................... 184

10.2 THE STUDY ................................................................................................................................... 184

10.3 MAIN FINDINGS FROM THE LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................. 185

10.4 MAIN FINDINGS FROM THE EMPIRICAL STUDY ..................................................................................... 185

10.5 ADDITIONAL ELEMENT: ILLUSTRATIVE EFFECTIVE PRACTICES .................................................................. 189

10.6 IMPLICATIONS ............................................................................................................................... 189

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 192

APPENDIX 1.................................................................................................................................... 208

DEBRIEFS/PROFESSIONAL CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN HEI TUTORS AND STS. ................................................... 208

SAMPLE 1 ............................................................................................................................................ 208

SAMPLE 2 ............................................................................................................................................ 210

ENDNOTES ..................................................................................................................................... 213


8

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1: Finland: University of Jyväskylä 4-year programme 56

Table 3.2: Western Australia: 4-year programme 57

Table 3.3: Singapore: Example of a 4-year programme at NIE 57

Table 4.1: Aims, Objectives/Questions, Evidence and Research Methods 64

Table 4.2: Breakdown of Evidence by Case Settings: Round 1 (R1) and Round 2 (R2) Fieldwor 67

Table 4.3: Overview of Samples and Evidence 68

Table 4.4 Data Gathering Schedule in Each HEI / Programme for each of the two Rounds of Fieldwork 72

Table 5.1: Time on SP, Number of Lessons and HEI Tutor Visits 78

Table 5.2 Timetabled outside of Classes of CT and Payment 83

Table 5.3: STs Observing Classroom Teaching 89

Table 5.4 Incidence of Guidance Received on Key Elements as Reported by Student Teachers 92

Table 5.5: Sources of Feedback to the ST by Primary and Post Primary in Round 1 (R1) and 2 (R2) Fieldwork96

Table 5.6: Guidance on how to teach by primary and post-primary (round 2) 97

Table 7.1: Frequency of cooperating teachers’ practices with student teachers 135

Table 7.2 Cooperating Teachers’ views of partnership with the HEI 138

Table 7.3: Cooperating teachers’ views of assessment 140

Table 7.4: Cooperating teachers’ views of their role in assessment in relation to the HEI tutor 141

Table 7.5: Primary and post primary teachers’ views of themselves as cooperating teachers 143

Table 7.6: Partnership between HEIs and Schools and Involvement of Staff in SP 150

Table 8.1: Knowing Procedures and Feeling Confident 153

Table 8.2: Experiences and Perspectives about Support 153

Table 8.3: Opportunities, Reflection, Assessment 160

Table 9.1 Student Teacher Research on School Placement 170


9

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CPD Continuing Professional Development

CT Co-operating Teacher

DES Department of Education and Skills

DEIS Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools

HEI Higher Education Institution

ITE Initial Teacher Education

NCCA National Council for Curriculum and Assessment

NQT Newly Qualified Teacher

PAC Postgraduate Applications Centre

PME Professional Masters in Education

PDST Professional Development Support for Teachers

SEN Special Educational Needs

SSE School Self Evaluation

ST Student Teacher

SP School Placement


10

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CONTEXT

The reforms in initial teacher education (ITE) introduced new arrangements for School

Placement (SP) that require an extension to the duration of ITE programmes as well as an

extended period in school during which students have opportunities to participate in the life

of the school as well as engage in direct teaching in classes. A more broadly based

professional experience is thus expected. A major change is that all STs on placement have a

co-operating teacher (CT) who, along with their Higher Education Institution (HEI) tutors,

supports them in their professional learning. A key element in this support is the opportunity

to observe teaching, co-plan and co-teach with their CTs. Having experience in more than

one school is also necessary and STs are expected to get experience of teaching across all the

levels of the school e.g. junior and senior cycle classes; multi-grade classes in primary

schools. Among the educational purposes of the changes are the strengthening of the

integration of theory and practice, the development of an inquiry orientation, and an

appreciation of the need to base professional decisions on evidence. HEIs and schools are

expected to build partnerships in the interests of maximising the professional learning of

student teachers and a much stronger emphasis is placed on the student teacher as learner

while in school than was the case in the past. Both the CT and the HEI tutor are expected to

collaborate and share expertise in fostering the student teacher’s learning. In this context the

Teaching Council is encouraging new kinds of relationships across CTs, HEI tutors and

student teachers (STs). The school itself is viewed as fundamental to the acquisition of the

sophisticated repertoire of skills and competences needed by teachers in contemporary

society.

THE STUDY

Research was needed about the implementation, bedding down and impact of the reforms and

so the Council commissioned this research. The research set out to document how the new

policy is being enacted, to track how HEIs, in collaboration with schools, are giving STs

access to high quality professional learning opportunities. The experiences and perspectives

of the major players in the system: student teachers, HEI tutors (including programme leaders

and directors of SP), co-operating teachers and school principals were central to

understanding the extent to which the new policy was being put into practice, and the issues

that were influencing its enactment. The commissioned study spanned over four years with

fieldwork beginning in late 2014 and continuing into early 2018. The project incorporates a

review of relevant international literature followed by a short account of policy on SP in

some selected countries, New Zealand, Scotland, Singapore, Finland and Western Australia.

Methodologically, the study adopts a mixed methods design with quantitative and qualitative

dimensions. It is based in six different HEIs that provide a variety of ITE programmes.

Qualitative and quantitative fieldwork took place in both primary and post-primary

undergraduate and postgraduate programmes. Student teachers, HEI staff and school staff

associated with these programmes were surveyed through questionnaires and interviews to

establish their views and experiences over time. The following numbers summarise the scale


11

of interview evidence over two rounds of data gathering respectively: 51+36 HEI tutors;

95+67 students teachers: 36+28 co-operating teachers; and 11+10 principals. In addition, the

scale of questionnaire data in both rounds respectively was: 112+80 HEI tutors; 235+410

student teachers; and 17+50 co-operating teachers.

Since effective practice is of particular interest, this was fore-grounded in the examination of

the literature and throughout the empirical analysis. In view of the design and scale of

evidence assembled and analysed, the findings provide a fair and representative account of

practice nationally. Incorporated in the main empirical study are many accounts of good

practice and practices that align with the new policy. An additional aspect of the study

presents (further) illustrations of effective practice involving partnership between schools and

HEIs which are designed to provide case material for development

MAIN FINDINGS FROM THE LITERATURE REVIEW

Research highlights the importance of SP. Having diverse and extensive opportunities to

learn the art, craft and science of teaching, appropriate mentoring, feedback and constructive

dialogue are all important for the professional learning of the ST. Good working partnerships

between HEIs and schools are also vital. The Irish reforms involving an extended placement

and the opportunity to work in different settings with co-operating teachers align with the

international evidence. The diversity of contacts and settings maximises chances for

observation, reflection and co-constructing knowledge. A major message from the review of

literature is that both the HEI and the school are fundamental to the professional development

of the student teacher and that how these partners relate, share and integrate their various

contributions matters a great deal. The HEI and the school are needed to enable the

integration of theory and practice and the notion that theory is associated with the HEI and

practice with the school is outmoded. STs benefit from having assignments set for them that

link with both settings. Opportunity to observe teachers teach is vital but the literature would

suggest that on its own it is inadequate. Observation needs to be balanced with opportunities

to reflect on and discuss the observed practice. The literature would suggest that to be a

reflective practitioner, reflection needs to be modelled by the school staff as otherwise it is

simply not valued by the student and not taken with them as part of their identity into their

future practice.

The literature indicates that CTs need to be carefully selected and trained for their roles and

that their roles need to be made explicit in terms of responsibily and approach. Training in

mentoring is important but training in matters of research/inquiry and innovative practices

would also appear to be relevant in view of the tendency in the existing research for STs to

mimic the practices of their CTs which may not always be effective or progressive. HEI

tutors working alongside teachers and student teachers in school would appear to be one way,

identified within the literature, of building effective partnerships between HEI and school.

Any such development has resource implications since effective mentoring requires

investment and it cannot be assumed that good teachers are automatically good mentors for

student teachers. Some jurisdictions devote considerable time and resources to this dimension

of teacher education. In Singapore for instance many school-based mentors are senior

teachers who have gone through a six-week, full-time course to enable them mentor STs with

a deep understanding of both college and school-based requirements while in Australia state-

based, online programmes are available to CTs/school mentors. STs do not typically source


12

their own school placements. In Scotland, for instance, there is a national system in operation

for placing students in schools.

MAIN FINDINGS FROM THE EMPIRICAL STUDY

IN A NUTSHELL

SP is a deeply meaningful professional experience for the vast majority of STs who report

that they felt competent and confident about it and feel well prepared. It is the major vehicle

for the integration of theory and practice. STs teach in a variety of schools and all STs have

experience of teaching in more than one school over their ITE programme. All have an

extended SP of at least the equivalent of 10 weeks in duration, with strict adherence in all

programmes to the Teaching Council requirements on direct teaching. It is common practice

for STs to have at least one SP in their home area and most likely in a school they themselves

attended as a pupil. STs have a gradual increase in teaching responsibility and in no case do

STs assume a 100% teaching load. The concept of ‘co-operating teacher’ is established

insofar as STs, HEI tutors and teachers themselves are very familiar with the new

terminology and there is strong evidence that all STs are allocated a CT who offers guidance

and feedback on their developing practice. The vast majority of STs have the opportunity to

observe teaching. There is a great deal of communication between HEIs and schools about SP

and its processes. While partnerships between HEIs and schools are still mainly informal and

‘ad hoc’, there are aspects that suggest greater formality in procedures are emerging. While it

is clear that the reforms are being enacted, there is much variation in the experience of

students in schools. HEI tutors have experienced considerable intensification in their work

and this is especially the case for programme leaders and directors of SP.

There are two major elements that merit further consideration in policy and practice to foster

better implementation and adherence to the new arrangements: the process of securing school

placements and the training for CTs. There are inescapable resource implications.

FEEDBACK

STs are observed teaching and get detailed feedback against professional criteria from their

HEI tutor on all aspects of their teaching. HEI tutor feedback tends to be detailed, criterion-

referenced, challenging, focussed and bearing on professional performance including lesson

planning and critical reflection and evaluation. There is considerable consistency across how

HEI tutors formatively assess their students. Feedback is offered orally and in writing and the

debrief provides for in-depth discussion and dialogue around pupil learning, and targets for

the ST’s own professional development. HEI feedback is highly regarded by STs. Students

are observed and evaluated by more than one tutor on their extended SP. The vast majority of

STs report that they receive guidance on a comprehensive range of aspects of professional

practice but only a minority reported receiving guidance on some broader aspects of school

life such as participating in staff meetings, dealing with parents, and cross-curricular

activities like sport.


13

STs also get guidance and support from their CT which they value highly. CT guidance and

feedback is more varied in that it is not as ‘standardised’ as that of the HEI tutor since much

depends on the context and especially the available expertise and time of the CT. In general,

CT guidance is strong on planning, classroom management and teaching/learning of specific

learners and curriculum elements. It is usually informal and rarely if ever written down. The

vast majority of STs have conversations with their CTs about their progress. A key difference

in the nature of feedback from the HEI tutor and the CT, apart from formality, is that the

focus of the tutor is always the ST’s learning whereas the primary focus of the CT is pupil

learning and this partially explains the difference in orientation. HEI tutors focus on a wide

range and in considerable depth on areas of professional practice and pay attention especially

to reflective practice and students’ own evaluations and responses to earlier feedback. CTs

are very much less inclined to pay attention to STs’ developing reflective and inquiry

capacities.

OBSERVATION, TEAM-TEACHING AND REFLECTION

All students have some opportunity to observe teachers teach with greater opportunity for this

in the primary sector. There are sectoral (primary/post-primary) differences with primary STs

more likely to be observed and involved in team-teaching with their CT. Students value the

opportunity to observe teachers and to team-teach but this experience is very dependent on

their CTs and can vary significantly from student to student. Thus it is arguable that this

could pose an equity issue and is a theme worth addressing.

Reflection, as in the development of the reflective and critical professional, is happening

across the board on all programmes and it is a key requirement for all students. It functions as

a key mechanism for integrating theory and practice, for enhancing and moving to more

nuanced practices, for attending to and understanding learner responses, for appreciating the

role of evidence in decision making, and for beginning the action research journey as a

professional from which more than they themselves can benefit. As such it is clearly a vital

component of the initial teacher education programme and its role is recognised by students

and is highly valued by HEI tutors. CTs’ understanding of critical reflection, and how to

engage students in a structured dialogue that supports critical reflection, is not yet evident in

CTs’ practices. Students themselves believe they are over-asked in regard to reflection and

for some it is perceived as ‘overwhelming’ and a source of stress.

ASSESSMENT AND GRADING

HEI tutors are exclusively responsible for grading and there is a strong reluctance on the part

of schools to share this responsibility. There isn’t a consensus, even among HEI tutors, about

the potential role of CTs in assessing/grading STs although the balance of evidence is away

from such a role currently. Summative assessment and grading is not based on individual

observed lessons but is based on a holistic judgement of the range of factors and areas of

professional practice. All assessment, formative and summative, is based on direct

observation, is performance-based with high validity. STs’ assessments/grading are also high

on reliability given the scale and emphasis on quality assurance mechanisms for maximising

the consistency of interpretations. This ensures faith in the fairness of results to students and

maximises equity. HEI tutors seek to meet and do meet CTs on visiting their STs and have

conversations about student progress. These encounters are informal. HEI tutors, CT and ST


14

meeting together to discuss progress is a very rare practice. Conversations between HEI

tutors and post-primary CTs are more problematic since the CT is not necessarily available.

(HEI visits are not announced in advance with the exception of one of our case study

programmes).

SCHOOL-HEI PARTNERSHIPS

School-HEI partnerships are developing with high levels of communication and sharing of

documentation from HEIs to schools, including communication between STs and schools

about the requirements of their SP. There is evidence of some very effective practices that are

well established in some schools such as a link teacher who is the liaison person with the HEI

provider and a support person at school level for the STs; SP teams of CTs who meet

regularly about SP and the STs in the school; school policy document on SP; CT Handbooks

prepared by the HEI for schools in consultation with schools, providing guidance on various

aspects such as giving feedback and participating in observation; newsletters from the HEI to

its partner schools about developments of relevance to the schools; and, training sessions at

the HEI for CTs.

However, in general, development of school-HEI partnership is hampered and dominated by

the challenge of securing school placements for student teachers and this is an overarching

finding of our research. Uncertainty and unpredictability about the supply of places mean that

senior HEI staff such as programme leaders and directors of SP are unable to devote adequate

time to other aspects of partnership development such as co-teaching/team-teaching and the

sharing of action research studies. HEI programme leaders and SP Directors are at one in

pleading for a national solution to this difficulty. Currently, STs and HEIs share some of the

responsibility of securing schools with STs taking the lead in securing a school for their

extended placement and the HEI sourcing schools for shorter placements.

THE EXTENDED SP: 10-WEEK BLOCK AND CONTINUOUS SP

Both the 10-week block and the continuous SP allow for establishing working relations with

learners and colleagues and thus to experience and sustain deeper and more meaningful

curricular activities as well as see progression in pupil learning. The extended SP allows STs

experience a range of classes in the school system. Students were unanimous in their support

for the extended experience in schools, comparing it favourably with their earlier, shorter

placements. The continuous SP is especially liked by STs. Both STs and HEI tutors are very

positive about the value of the extended placement. The extended SP is pivotal in allowing

students experience professional life across the school, including participation in cross-

curricular and cross-school activities, such as musical and sports events and trips.

However, CTs are generally not in favour of the 10-week block as it is viewed as ceding

control of the class for almost a full term. For post primary teachers, a block placement is

considered restrictive compared to the developmental process and valuable learning that can

occur over the course of a year, especially if this is a graduated experience where

responsibilities are added and supported incrementally.

PAYMENT


15

Primary students, while on SP, do not get paid and tend to be precluded by their HEI from

taking up positions of substitute teacher. Their HEIs are strongly opposed to this until into

June when their academic year is over. There is a tendency for post-primary students to

receive payment for some teaching in their placement school: a quarter of the STs reporting

that they are paid for teaching or doing other work in school. Some post-primary students are

timetabled in their subjects outside of their allocated quota of CT classes but do not get paid.

In these cases tutors encouraged their students to tell them about such arrangements and any

pressure from schools to teach extra hours but it seems to be a grey area. It was noted by a

minority of STs as a source of stress to them since they find it difficult to refuse to help out in

schools given the potential for securing employment in the school on completion of their

programme.

SIGNIFICANCE OF SP TO STS AND ST CONCERNS

Evidence from students themselves demonstrates that SP is a significant and positive

experience for the vast majority. It is the space where theory and practice meet for them. It is

hugely affirming and life-enhancing: it powerfully communicates to them in the most direct

way what their strengths and skills are as emerging teachers; equally, it exposes their

weaknesses but it clarifies what they need to do to overcome them; it reminds and re-affirms

their idealism, optimism and passion about their chosen career. The evidence shows that STs

are highly appreciative of the opportunity to participate in the life of their placement school

and the extended placement is key to this opportunity. The vast majority reported that they

feel well prepared and well supported on SP and that they contribute to the life of the school.

Students recognise the importance of planning and evaluation but they are very critical of the

scale of lesson planning and evaluating that they are required to do. Some are also critical of

inconsistencies in feedback and assessments they receive from their HEI tutors although the

vast majority are extremely positive about their experience of being observed by their tutors.

Being observed brings stress and this combined with the very heavy workload of SP mean

that SP is overall a very intense and tiring experience. They are very conscious of the

considerable expense associated with training to be a teacher and much of the expense is

associated with SP.

ADDITIONAL ELEMENT: ILLUSTRATIVE EFFECTIVE PRACTICES

The development of placement-related materials can be the seed that enables ‘partnership’

between a school and a HEI to be experienced, understood, and grown. Opportunities for

teachers, STs and HEI staff to talk about teaching, learning, knowing, and knowledge in

shared spaces contribute to the effectiveness of school placement by making explicit the

implicit in teaching and learning. Graduated expectations are useful in helping to align

mentoring support with the stage of development of the student teacher. HEI-based

professional learning seminars responsive to the needs of placement schools are valued by

schools and help build school-HEI relationships. Student teachers are a rich learning resource

for teacher professional learning across the continuum. If research projects are undertaken by

students in placement settings during placement, ought there be some professional

responsibility on all students to share the outcomes of their research with their placement

settings? How might the HEI showcase the finalised research projects in a way that celebrates

partnership on placement and opens up further learning potential for school-HEI-student


16

teacher learning? Conceptualising ‘partnership’ as webs of relational community networks

has merit in terms of understanding situated teacher learning across the continuum.

IMPLICATIONS

While the new arrangements introduced by the Teaching Council have been introduced and

are bedding down in practice as shown by the evidence presented in this Report, there are

significant implications for the enactment of a more coherent and consistent approach

nationally. These implications concern the development of the partnerships that are needed

between schools and HEIs to maximize the learning potential of SP for STs. On the basis of

the evidence presented in this study the following implications merit consideration.

1. That a mechanism be found so all schools are part of ITE through allowing access

to STs for SP. Specifically, this would mean that all state-funded schools would

agree to give access to STs for placement and that they would co-operate in line

with the Teaching Council requirements on such aspects as observation. This

would greatly alleviate the pressure on the system in securing SPs. It may be that

the official processes of whole-school evaluations and school-self evaluations

could feature in opening up schools to this possibility.

2. That support be extended to CTs to prepare them for their role especially in

relation to offering feedback on observed teaching, providing recommendations

for improvement, and in formatively assessing and discussing student teachers’

performance. This suggestion, in particular, requires that attention be paid to

resources for training. The training of CTs is entirely under-resourced and is

currently dependent on HEIs providing some opportunities for CTs to attend

meetings. If CTs are to be effective supporters of STs on placement, they need

appropriate training and ongoing opportunities to share their practice in this

regard. This is crucial in schools especially in those that do not have a tradition of

supporting STs on SP. The Dutch system (and others) whereby school-based

teacher educators straddle both school and HEI would be one aspect worth

consideration in this context. Another is the potential for clustering of schools or

cross-school collaboration for CPD. If all CTs could be released for the equivalent

of one period per week to plan and feedback with their STs, to meet with HEI

tutors, engage in some 3-way conversations with tutors and students, and engage

in professional development on the support of their STs on placement, this would

go some way towards more effective and consistent provision for STs on

placement.

3. The current level of variation in the experience of the ST would be reduced if the

first two implications noted here are enacted. HEIs are not in a position, nor do

they wish to be, to oblige schools to allow their students engage in such activities

as observing CTs or team-teaching or to demand that their STs are not time-tabled

for lessons outside of those of their CT, yet these are vital issues impacting the

learning of the ST. The bigger point here is that there is a need for greater clarity

about the role of the CT.

4. That resources be provided to allow HEIs and schools together to consider the

potential for joint inquiries. If reflective practice and an inquiry stance is to be


17

valued by student teachers, they need to see this enacted in their placement

schools. HEI tutors have a role in supporting this process and would be well

placed to provide the support to schools. This could be linked to induction and

ongoing teacher learning and may support the continuum of learning over the

teaching career.

5. That further consideration be given to the pressures on schools of the

requirements of SP, including the pressure of engaging with multiple providers

and that greater opportunity be provided for schools and HEIs to liaise and

communicate about SP, all of which are resource-dependent.

6. That the current national framework be revisited and revised to encourage a

consistent approach for STs but one that also has enough flexibility to be

responsive to particular needs and school contexts. With regard to the latter for

instance, some school concerns about releasing classes for the ten week block

could be mitigated by encouraging more team-teaching on the part of STs and

CTs during the block.

7. There is strong merit in addressing the development of school placement within

the overall continuum of teacher education. This would place school placement

side-by-side with Droichead and Cosán in terms of processes, structures,

resources and overall coherence in teacher education. A continuum-wide lens

would support capacity-building across the continuum of teacher education and

build on the practice of collaborative professional dialogue encouraged through

Droichead. 8. That, a Working Group be convened to consider how greater alignment can be

obtained between the policy on SP and its enactment, bearing in mind the findings

and implications of this study. It may be that the Working Group on SP that was

established some time ago could be revitalised to develop a timeframe for the

enactment and monitoring of a framework that would address roles,

responsibilities, resources, and CPD. This group, chaired by the Teaching

Council, would need to include members drawn from key interest groups: the

Teaching Council itself, HEIs, schools, the DES and HEA. In particular, it would

need to include CTs as well as STs, i.e. representatives who were not part of the

original Working Group.


18

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 OVERVIEW

This research arises from developments in policy and practice in teacher education in Ireland

and in relation to changes in school placement (SP) in particular. It is a systematic

investigation of current placement practices in initial teacher education (ITE). Understanding

the issues that constitute an effective school placement experience for student teachers in

both primary and post-primary sectors is a key aspect.

Initiated by the Teaching Council and endorsed by the DES and HEIs, the move to enhance

and extend the SP component within ITE presents both an opportunity and a challenge to all

concerned. Enthusiasm for greater emphasis on SP and a more integrated approach to school

and college experiences is high among all interested parties but there are significant concerns

too that stem from the current cultural and historical context, and the scale of the change to

traditional practice. The study attends to how the new arrangements for SP are enacted and

experienced with a view to enabling the Council make informed policy and offer robust

guidelines to HEIs and schools about how best to foster the professional competence of the

student teacher. Overall the aim is to build a comprehensive picture of SP and offer

portrayals and exemplifications of ‘leading practice’ grounded in the current realities of Irish

schools and HEIs.

1.2 BACKGROUND TO THE CHANGES A number of factors influenced recent reform of teacher education in Ireland. While it has

long been recognized that teaching is a complex activity, the changing and more diverse

population of learners alongside the constant demand for higher standards on the part of

pupils gave impetus to the need to scrutinize how teachers were prepared for their

professional roles. A new extended professionalism was deemed necessary. Ireland was not

unique in attending more critically than in the past to teacher education matters. Various

international reports such as OECD’s Teachers Matter (2005) had pointed to the need to take

a fresh look at how student teachers are prepared for their profession and how they are

developed and supported over their teaching careers. While the OECD had commented

favorably on many aspects of teacher education in Ireland, not least the calibre of student

entering and the esteem in which the teaching profession is held in society, it had identified a

number of areas that needed strengthening. In a publication prepared for the Teaching

Council, John Coolahan (2007 had highlighted the need for a restructuring of ITE courses to

better integrate theory and practice and to foster teachers as reflective practitioners.

In Ireland, in addition, great attention was being paid to policies and practices in countries

that on various quality metrics were achieving very well. For instance, the emphasis in

Finland on teacher professional knowledge and professional decision-making, on the high

level of teacher training at the initial stage, trust in teachers, and sense of collegial

professionalism (Sahlberg, 2006, 2011) was especially influential in shaping some of the

reforms that occurred in Ireland. Finland appears to be successful on two key fronts: high


19

standards of academic achievement on the one hand and high standards of equity and

inclusion on the other hand. This dual success is not a feature of many other OECD countries

(Hall, Ozerk, & Curtin, in preparation).

Comparative research commissioned by the Teaching Council and conducted by a team of

colleagues in UCC (Conway, Murphy, Rath, & Hall, 2009) showed that teachers need

opportunities to become critical, inquiry-oriented professionals able to investigate

pedagogical practices and share their inquiries among colleagues. This and other work

conducted in Ireland helped shape the changes that have been introduced over recent years.

As the statutory body charged with regulating teaching as a profession in Ireland, the

Teaching Council established a Code of Professional Conduct for Teachers (2012) which

includes standards of teaching knowledge, skill and competence. In 2011, it set out

expectations on the knowledge, skills and competences that STs should acquire on their ITE

programmes. This was the first time in Ireland that expectations were defined at national

level. Up to then it was up to each Higher Education Institution (HEI) to determine the

learning outcomes and processes of their teacher education programmes. All ITE

programmes now go through a rigorous professional accreditation process.

Initial teacher education in Ireland is provided by a number of HEIs, most of which are state

supported. One private college is state accredited for the provision of teacher education. Both

concurrent (undergraduate) and consecutive (postgraduate) models of ITE are and were

available in Ireland. The vast majority of post-primary teachers in the system hold a

postgraduate diploma in education while the vast majority of primary teachers completed a 3-

year BEd. Concurrent courses are common for post-primary teachers of specialised subjects

with a strong practical component such as art, physical education, music, home economics,

technology (Conway et al., 2009). Recently there has been an on-going process of mergers

and alliances forming between some ITE providers, following the recommendations of the

‘Review of the Structure of Initial Teacher Education Provision in Ireland’ (Sahlberg, 2012).

This is an on-going process the aim of which is to rationalize and essentially reduce the large

number of ITE providers in the State.

1.3 THE CHANGES: NEW POLICY ON SP

Three documents are especially noteworthy on the changes and new arrangements and all

clarify requirements on SP: Policy on the Continuum of Teacher Education published in June

2011 (Teaching Council, 2011b); Initial Teacher Education: Criteria and Guidelines for

Programme Providers, published in June 2011 (Teaching Council, 2011a); and, Guidelines

on School Placement published in 2013 as an addendum to the aforementioned Criteria and

Guidelines (Teaching Council, 2013).

Over the past six years all programmes of ITE were required to extend the period of teacher

education. All concurrent (undergraduate) programmes of initial teacher education, must be a

minimum of four years' duration and all consecutive (postgraduate) programmes of initial

teacher education must be of two years' duration. There are also post-graduate programmes

for primary teachers and again these programmes are of two years duration and lead to a

PME. Since 2012/2013, all undergraduate programmes are four or five years in duration, and


20

from September 2014, all postgraduate programmes have been of two years in duration.

Along with the extended duration of the period of ITE is the nature of the educational

experience itself. A key principle of the new provision across all programmes is the closer

integration, than previously, of theory and practice and in this regard the SP element of the

redesigned programmes is central. All programmes are required to have an extended period

of SP and the school itself is viewed as fundamental to the acquisition of an inquiry-oriented

professional stance. While the HEIs have the ultimate responsibility for the programmes,

schools are viewed as central, experienced teachers are encouraged to serve as co-operating

teachers (CTs) and school-HEI partnerships are essential to this agenda. Both the CT and the

HEI tutor are expected to collaborate and share expertise in fostering the ST’s learning. In

this context the Teaching Council (2011a, 15) is encouraging ‘new and innovative school

placement models’ and new kinds of relationships across CTs, HEI tutors and STs. The

placement guidelines call for HEIs and schools to work together on school placement ‘as

partners’ (TC 2013, p.5) but without placing ‘an undue burden on schools’ (2013, p.7).

While SP was part of initial teacher education for many decades and teacher education

providers have a long history of involvement with schools, relationships and partnerships

were usually informal and based on goodwill. In the current context partnerships are expected

to become more explicit and formal and initiated by the HEI. Overall, the new ITE policy

seeks practice that is professionally and academically enriching and which lays the

foundation for the teacher as a lifelong learner.

An important requirement in the new arrangement is that STs have the opportunity to observe

experienced teachers teaching and to have opportunities to discuss their observations with

CTs, HEI tutors and fellow students. In other words, the new policy is one where student

teachers are positioned as learners (as well as teachers) while they are in school. This is a

theme that has been flagged as an identity issue traditionally in ‘teaching practice’ (Hall et al

2012) and argued as highly significant in teacher formation (e.g. Conway and Munthe, 2015).

The nomenclature itself – ‘school placement’ - replaces ‘teaching practice’ thus emphasising

the need for STs to gain an understanding and experience of the wider culture and practices

in a school. A more broadly based experience is thus expected beyond direct teaching. All

students have to spend a considerable period of time in school and this involves engaging in

teaching, observation and participating in a range of school activities. The School Placement

Guidelines (Teaching Council, 2013) state that 'over the full programme, the school-based

element must incorporate, at a minimum, 100 hours of direct teaching experience….it is

expected that HEIs and schools will work towards a position where student teachers will gain

direct teaching experience in the region of 200 to 250 hours’ (p.12). Typically, a student

teacher on an undergraduate programme spends about 24 weeks on SP. A student on a two-

year postgraduate programme spends 30 weeks of that programme in schools. In all cases, the

Council requires that the second half of the programme should include at least one block

placement for a minimum of ten weeks.

Within those requirements, programme providers have flexibility in determining the duration,

structure and timing of the school-based element and thus can have regard for local

circumstances. Over their programme STs must experience at least two contrasting placement

settings. They are expected to have experience of teaching at a variety of levels of the system

(e.g. classes at upper and lower primary level if becoming a primary teacher, and at junior


21

cycle and senior cycle in the case of post-primary student teachers). Students are observed

and assessed by their HEI tutors.

There is no formal structured or paid mentoring scheme in operation for the CT and

assistance to the ST from school staff is on a voluntary basis.

1.4 IMPLEMENTATION AND BEDDING DOWN OF THE CHANGES

While the Teaching Council guidelines offer a valuable model for action, evidence was

needed about the implementation, bedding down and impact of these policies and guidelines.

To address these issues the Council commissioned this research. The project set out to

document how the new policy is being enacted, to track how HEIs, in collaboration with

schools, are giving STs access to high quality professional learning opportunities. As noted

above the study set out to give an account of the implementation of the new arrangements

with reference to the experiences and perspectives of the major players in the system: STs,

HEI tutors, programme leaders and Directors of SP, CTs and school principals. The study

reported here spanned four years and incorporates a review of relevant international

literature, and interview and questionnaire surveys of the key stakeholders paced in a way to

capture development and change.

1.5 PLAN OF THE REPORT

Following this chapter a detailed exploration of relevant literature is offered on SP within

ITE. A wide range of empirical studies is examined here and particular attention is paid to

aspects that shed light on how to ensure ‘effective’ practice and maximise the quality of the

professional experience for the student teacher. In the course of this analysis, we focus

specifically on the key roles, responsibilities and perspectives of the main actors in the SP

component of ITE programmes: the co-operating teacher, the HEI tutor, and the student. The

chapter highlights some issues for the further development of SP in Ireland and it informed

the design and conduct of the fieldwork on which latter chapters are based.

Chapter Three illustrates different models of SP in the policy literature pertaining to some

selected, relevant countries: Scotland, New Zealand, Singapore, Finland, and Western

Australia.

As a research design chapter, Chapter Four details all elements of the scale and scope of the

research. It describes the focus of the research, the methods used for data collection,

sampling and analysis, ethical issues and quality assurance aspects.

Chapter Five, as the largest empirical chapter in the study, seeks to provide a detailed

account of SP practices across the six case study sites. It addresses what is happening under

the banner of SP and gives an account of the typical and diverse practices in operation. It

presents evidence on nature and scale of SP, feedback templates and criteria, opportunities

for critical reflection and observation, sources of guidance and feedback to STs,

opportunities to observe teachers teach, variation in provision, assessment and feedback of

STs on SP, roles of CTs and HEI tutors in all aspects of the SP and variation in practice, the

role of the debrief, the perceived benefits of the extended duration, and quality assurance in

interpretation of ST performance.


22

All parts of the study are about STs on SP and all chapters are inevitably about the

experience of STs and about the nature of the partnerships that are evolving between

schools and HEIs. However, Chapter Six attends more specifically to the issue of

partnership between schools and HEIs and attends very directly to the issues associated

with securing SP for STs which ultimately is the responsibility of the HEI. The data base

for this chapter is primarily, but not exclusively, the HEI tutor and Director of SP

interviews and surveys.

Chapter Seven extends this analysis by focussing more specifically, but again not

exclusively, on the roles and experiences of the CT and school principal. It seeks to

understand the perspectives and experiences of the CT about their ‘co-operating’ role and

how this has changed (or not) for them under the new arrangements.

Chapter Eight foregrounds the STs perspective on the matters which concern them about

SP. This chapter is based on the ST surveys and interviews, thus incorporating quantitative

and qualitative evidence about their experiences and perspectives.

Throughout the chapters there are various portrayals and examples of practices that are

highly regarded by participants and appear to be very effective in supporting the

implementation and bedding down of the new policy. Where appropriate, these are

described and analysed and links are made to some of the literature already reviewed in

Chapter Two. However, it was decided that one chapter would be specifically devoted to

presenting and examining some examples of good practice that have been introduced into

some school-HEI partnerships. Chapter Nine therefore presents six case-based vignettes of

effective practices that are in operation in various settings. This chapter, unlike others in the

Report, is not claiming to represent developments nationally, rather its purpose is to

illustrate some particular ways in which schools and HEIs are working together to support

the student teacher. The evidence base for this chapter comes from settings within and

beyond the case study settings of the empirical study.

Chapter Ten concludes the study with a summary of the main findings. It identifies some

key conclusions and draws out their implications for future policy and practice.


23

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

Research on teacher preparation in many countries highlights the importance of school

placement (hereafter SP) for the effective formation of teachers. The SP or practicum is

seen as hugely significant by student teachers, teacher educators and teachers as well as by

policy makers. It is seen as vital for the growth of professional competence of the student

teacher, has been referred to as the core of the teacher education programme (Tillema,

2007) and as ‘the most powerful site of integration for student learning’ (Waldron, 2014,

37). As we already outlined, the nature of the school experience in ITE in Ireland is

changing in light of the new requirements from the Teaching Council. Most ITE

programmes in the country are still in the early years of enacting these requirements. It is

important to keep the process of change under scrutiny and this examination of relevant

literature on SP is intended to support that process of policy implementation and review.

The move to greater involvement of the school in the development of the student teacher in

Ireland extends the professional community for the student. Traditionally, Irish students on

‘teaching practice’ would have experienced mentoring relationships, to varying degrees,

with classroom teachers. However, the policy changes in initial teacher education place a

new, more interventionist emphasis on the role of the school and the role of the co-

operating teacher in particular.

Systematic reviews of existing international research point to the limited evidence that is

available on which to base firm recommendations for specific practices and models of SP

(Moyles & Stuart, 2003; Menter et al, 2010; Zwozdiak-Meyers et al 2010). However, the

more typical narrative reviews (e.g. Cochran-Smith et al 2015) along with empirical studies

in different settings and jurisdictions provide insights and findings that are helpful in guiding

and assessing our own policy and practice in Ireland, as well as in directing us to key elments

to be probed in our empirical evaluation of policy implementation in the first years of the

changes. There is a corpus of research now available describing and analysing experiences

and practices of the various players involved in SP, including student teachers, co-operating

teachers, university/HEI tutors and we review that below paying attention where we can to

the most effective practices identified by the research evidence with a view to offering

research-informed recommendations for future policy and practice. We begin the review by

acknowledging some of the very recent research available in Ireland since the introduction of

the changes.

A caveat is necessary at the outset – previous reviewers of research in the field of teacher

education have commented on its lack of cohesiveness. Cochran-Smith et al (2015, 109) refer

to what they call ‘the sprawling and uneven field of research on teacher education’. Bearing

in mind this lack of cohesion we have sought to focus our searches, reviewing and reporting

on key elements pertaining to SP that we believe have particular relevance for the Irish

situation at this time.

The review is structured into two main parts. This first and larger chapter reviews various

empirical studies bearing on SP. Particular attention is paid here to aspects that shed light on

how to ensure ‘effective’ practice and maximise the quality of the professional experience for

the student teacher. In the course of this analysis, we focus specifically on the key roles,


24

responsibilities and perspectives of the main actors in the SP component of ITE programmes:

the co-operating teacher, the HEI tutor, and the student. (The next chapter illustrates different

models of SP in the policy literature pertaining to some selected, relevant countries: Scotland,

New Zealand, Singapore, Finland, and Western Australia.) This chapter concludes by

highlighting some implications of the international literature for the further development of

SP in Ireland and for the design and conduct of the fieldwork which will yield an evaluation

of how SP is enacted in Ireland.

2.1 RECENT IRISH RESEARCH

The scale of the changes and new initiatives in teacher education since the foundation of the

Teaching Council in 2006 has been very significant and has been described in at least one

publication as ‘unprecedented’ (O’Donoghue, Harford and O’Doherty, 2017). The

conceptualisation of the type of ‘partnership’ required for SP has been critiqued primarily on

the basis that it is loose and lacking in detail about roles and responsibilities (Harford and

O’Doherty, 2016). As yet there is little evidence available of the implementation and impact

of the new arrangements on SP. We note, however, some very recently published satisfaction

survey results from 154 school principals of post-primary schools in Ireland (JMB, 2017)

who were invited to offer opinion on the SP of students on PME programmes for the post-

primary sector. The views expressed are mixed. Over half the respondents expressed

satisfaction with the information they receive while the majority believe that the number of

classes student teachers are required to teach is ‘just about right’ although the surveyed

principals are unsure about the adequacy of SP visits from HEI tutors. Open-ended responses,

while varied, demonstrate concerns about the resource demands of the new arrangements on

schools. The survey concludes by saying that the mismatch of rhetoric and reality points to

the need to keep implementation under review and they suggest that ‘much needs to be done

to make this provision fit-for-purpose’. In the same vein participants at two INTO-initiated

seminars (INTO, 2014; INTO, 2016) reached similar conclusions in relation to the primary

sector with the summary report of 2016 in particular highlighting concerns about the

adequacy of the available resources to obtain a good fit between the new policy and practice

(O’Doherty, 2016).

Very recently conducted doctoral research on the perspectives of CTs, school managers and

STs in Ireland (O’Grady, 2017) has many parallels with research conducted in other countries

(see the Scottish research reported later in the chapter). Sarah O’Grady’s study concluded

that school managers and CTs experienced an increase in workload as a result of the new SP

arrangements although they perceived the changes as ‘mainly positive’. The schools involved

in her study called for greater guidance from HEIs especially in relation to observation and

how to give feedback to STs. The issue of resources as a constraint was highlighted. CTs, in

particular, perceived that time to engage with the ST is essential – structured time set within

their schedules – to meet both STs and HEI tutors. Overall, this study argues that in the

absence of better resourcing for training and partnership building that changes are at best

‘superficial’. The findings of this research echo that of the survey conducted by the JMB and

the conceptual evaluation of Harford and O’Doherty (2016). Another theme from O’Grady’s

study is the need for HEIs to engage more directly with CTs since currently it would appear

the greater part of the communication occurs between HEI tutors and school Principals.


25

A study by Sugrue and Solbrekke,(2015) offers a conceptual policy and empirical analysis of

the teacher education reforms with reference to placement and partnership, and links the

developments with the wider context of shifts in higher education towards employability and

the economy. Their analysis of the SP policy leads them to conclude that ‘teachers’ goodwill,

the voluntary nature of their contribution, its informality, its non-evaluative nature’ point to a

disproportionate level of responsibility on the HEI for initiating and sustaining the expected

partnership for SP.

The international literature on SP uses many different terms for what is now in Ireland called

the co-operating teacher: mentor, school advisor, school associate, supervising teacher,

sponsor teacher, and school-based teacher educator. For our purposes we use the label ‘co-

operating teacher’ since that is the language used in current Irish policy documents. In Ireland

(as in most other jurisdictions) the ultimate responsibility for the ITE programme, along with

the SP component, is the HEI.

2.2 SIGNIFICANCE OF SCHOOL-HEI PARTNERSHIP

2.2.1 BOTH HEI & SCHOOL NEEDED FOR INTEGRATING THEORY & PRACTICE

For many decades, there have been concerns about the lack of alignment of SP with its HEI

component (see Bullough and Gitlin, 2010; Calvo and Wood, 2014). Concerns expressed by

school staff/mentors, students and HEI teacher educators, are also related to the quality of

mentoring and the timing of placements. Over time efforts have been made to obtain a better

fit across both HEI and school-based components and in this regard the work of Cochran-

Smith, 2005; Zeichner, 2010; Menter et al, 2010 are illustrative of various perspectives and

practices designed to obtain a better integration of theory and practice. Fundamental here is

the idea that schools are not just settings where student teachers do their teaching practice or

places where the theory, learned elsewhere, can be applied, but rather that the school itself is

a setting for theory building, for understanding practice, for learning about curriculum,

assessment, learning, and pedagogy through working with a range of students and adults.

This is a view that recognises that student teacher learning is not just an individual enterprise

but is distributed across the school and HEI communities. Thus the school itself is perceived

as a professional learning community (Stoll, 2010) and student teachers learn by participating

in all activities associated with it: teaching in classrooms, observing others teach,

participating in staff meetings and meetings about learners’ progress with parents to name but

some.

Knowledge of how learning happens, regardless of level, context or age of learner would

suggest that learners need guidance on how best to participate, interpret and use their

experience which in turn implies having the opportunity to reflect on those experiences, to

discuss them with more knowledgeable others as well as share with peers (Wenger, 1998,

Lave and Wenger, 1991, Eraut, 2004 and 2007, Boud et al 2009, Billett, 2002). How all this

happens is far from straightforward. The way HEIs and schools work together, in other

words, the nature of their partnerships, becomes a focus for dealing with some of the

problems and concerns. A major message from the diverse, international literature we

examined for this Report is that both the HEI and the school are fundamental to the


26

professional development of the student teacher and that how they relate, share and integrate

their various contributions matters.

The vast majority of the studies of SP that we found are based on programmes that involve

both the HEI and the school, with most studies seeking to better understand and evaluate the

manner in which responsibility is shared across both settings i.e. how HEI tutors and school

staff share and experience their roles in shaping the next generation of teachers. Darling-

Hammond (2006) is among many researchers who has shown through empirical evidence

that linking practicum experiences with ‘on campus’ or HEI-based work is a most powerful

and effective way of preparing student teachers to teach. She identified a number of ways of

achieving a meaningful, coherent programme of initial teacher preparation through strong

school university partnerships: well designed in-school experiences that strive to make

explicit the links between theory and practice through action research and performance

assessments.

It is not enough merely to have more time in school. What happens across both the HEI and

the school is key and how work set for students in both settings is integrated into their SP

would appear to be vital for the professional competence acquired by the student. Murray

and Passy (2014, 502) note that SP is not just about ‘immersion in classrooms with

knowledge of how to teach positioned as easy to acquire through fundamentally

apprenticeship modes of training’. These and other authors who have examined the extensive

literature on professional learning demonstrate that for high quality learning and competence

to be achieved the student teacher has to be viewed as a learner as well as a teacher. The

necessary visibility of the student teacher on SP as learner pushes towards the need to

recognise the school as not merley a work place but a learning place for the student teacher

(Conway and Munthe, 2015). The notion of the student teacher as learner as well as teacher

while on SP might seem an obvious and taken for granted principle but how that gets enacted

in practice demands all of the following challenging dimensions:

a communal learning culture within the school in which students are valued; a culture

in which symbiotic relationships between the multiple discourses about theory and

practice, teaching and learning in ITE can be facilitated; participation in a well-

planned, rich and flexible variety of activities balanced between organisation and

individual needs; the availability of time and space for quality learning opportunities

and experiences to occur, and then further time to reflect upon them, and finally,

teaching colleagues who undertake support roles and challenge learners. (McNamara

et al cited in Murray and Passy, 2014, p 502).

All of this assumes a degree of expertise, resources and time on the part of the HEI and the

school as well as careful organisation and communinication.

Contrary to some commonly held assumptions that they privilege the practical over the

theoretical, student teachers appear to value equally the theoretical and practical components

of their programmes (Allen, 2009; Allen and Wright, 2014). Allen and Wright (2014) found

that they ‘overwhelmingly’ endorse the linking of university coursework to the practicum as


27

a means of bridging university and school. The questionnaires and interviews in their

research were based on Australian student teacher perceptions and experiences of the factors

that hinder and inhibit the integration of theory and practice. Interestingly, students reported

that what hindered their ability was assessment or assignments that had a strong demarcation

between their course work and the assessment of their practicum. The students surveyed

reported that an embedded assessment approach would enable a better and more authentic

linkage between theory and practice. Another element that emerged from that study is the

importance of clear and transparent understandings about roles of the various stake holders:

students, school mentors/co-operating teachers and university tutors. Where there was

confusion regarding roles and responsibilities of university and school staff, students reported

that they felt constrained in making links between campus-based and school-based work.

Based on earlier evidence assembled in a review of international literature (Conway et al

2009) the recommendation was made that initial teacher education programmes carefully

consider the links between components of programmes – foundation studies, teaching

methods and teaching practice so that ‘integrative modules’ could explicitly focus on

connections between pedagogy modules and the social contexts of classrooms and schools.

That report also advocated clarity in relation to roles of HEI tutors and staff in schools.

A recent descriptive study of the development of partnership working in some initial teacher

education programmes (van Velzen and van der Klink, 2014) is instructive in that it outlines

some Dutch changes currently being government-funded (to varying degrees) and the Dutch

policy context overall would appear to recognise some of the complexity of the entire

process. A shift in practice in Holland is that teacher educators from the HEIs not only teach

their student teachers at the university but also teach them in their school settings, the aim

being for student teachers, teacher educators and co-operating teachers to work closely

together to achieve alignment between theory and practice. Student teachers engage in

teaching and non-teaching activities. In addition some teachers in the system have been

trained to become ‘school-based teacher educators’ (SBTEs). This is a significant

development. These professionals collaborate with the HEI and their main role is the

development and assessment of the student teachers.

2.2.2 FOCUSSING ON THE SCHOOL AND CO-OPERATING TEACHER

In a narrative review of studies, mainly from North America and going back over a sixty year

period, Clarke et al (2014) identify common constructions of the role of co-operating

teachers. They identify a continuum of different levels of participation in teacher education

preparation which resonate with the history, some very recent, of teacher preparation in

Ireland. At one end of that continuum, with a minimal level of participation, is what they call

the ‘classroom placeholder’. This involves the student teacher taking the place of the

classroom teacher who leaves the classroom and may take up other duties in the school for

the period of the placement. In Ireland this might be described as a ‘sink or swim’ approach

and was, until recently, quite common, especially at secondary initial teacher education. The

assumption is that the student benefits from complete immersion in the practice of teaching,

taking on all the main duties of the class teacher. Some student teachers and indeed some HEI

tutors and teachers may firmly believe that the only way to learn about teaching is to have as

much practice as possible as early as possible in their training. Such a view can lead to an


28

impoverished experience for students and a narrow view of what it means to be a professional

(see Hopper, 2010).

Further along Clarke et al’s continuum of participation is the co-operating teacher as

‘supervisor of practice’ which involves the teacher as overseer of the student teacher’s work:

observer, recorder and reporter of the student teacher’s work with the interaction tending to

be mainly uni-directional from the co-operating teacher to the student teacher. At the other

end of the continuum is the co-operating teacher as coach, that is somone who works closely

with the student teacher, co-constructing and co-interpreting events sometimes as they unfold

in the classroom. This level of participation inevitably assumes the co-operating teacher is

well equipped to support and mentor new learners and can appreciate the complexity and

uniqueness of settings. As the researchers of these various studies note, in this case the role of

the co-operating teacher is akin to that of the teacher educator albeit with different roles and

responsibilities. In general, it would appear from the existing studies that teachers and school

staff are willing to see participation in SP as part of their extended professional role.

However, as the involvement and the demand increase, teachers appear to be more reluctant

to take on the additional responsibility. A study comparing ‘discourses of partnership’ in

England and Scotland for instance (Brisard et al 2006) showed that a significant number of

teachers feel strongly that teachers’ professional goodwill can no longer be assumed as a

guarantee of participation. This is so because of other tensions and demands in the education

system such as pressure to raise pupil standards of achievement and demands associated with

inducting and mentoring newly qualified teachers in the profession (Brisard et al 2006).

It is of note that in 2013 the Teaching Council hosted the EU Presidency Conference, the

theme of which was the professional identity of teacher educators. Among its objectives was

the following: to support policy exchange, learning and development, and to generate policy-

oriented recommendations on the identity of teacher educators. In one of the keynote

presentations at that EU event in Dublin, Professor Kay Livingston strongly argued that many

teachers do not recognise or identify themselves as teacher educators, and as a result

recognition and support for their development as teacher educators can be limited. Nearly

two decades ago Weiss and Weiss (2001, 166) argued that all stakeholders involved in

teacher education see co-operating teachers as ‘the most powerful influence on the quality of

the student teaching experience’ but add that this depends on how the mentoring occurs.

Several studies and reviews of studies explore the actual roles and practices of co-operating

teachers. A number of interesting findings emerge from those studies. Using a modified

version of Clarke et al’s framework, we analyse the main findings from that corpus of work

in light of new developments in the Irish context under the following headings: i) feedback

and summative judgement; ii) observation and modelling of practice; and, iii) relationship

building and socialisation.

2.2.3 FEEDBACK: FORMATIVE AND SUMMATIVE


29

Providing feedback to the student teacher on all aspects of the placement experience is at the

heart of the co-operating teacher’s role. According to the literature (e.g. Hudson, 2010, 2014)

providing feedback can be considered ‘the linchpin for advancing practices’ (Hudson, 2014,

63) yet it seems this aspect of the role is variable and therefore inequitable, with some

students receiving lots of high quality input while others, perhaps on the same programme,

getting very little. Consistent feedback to student teachers and summative judgement on

students’ growing competence in the classroom, specifically in relation to planning, range of

pedagogical approaches, differentiation, and assessment, by co-operating teachers appears to

be problematic and the existing research literature would appear to be at one on this point. It

seems that even the best co-operating teachers typically struggle to give explanations of

practice to student teachers that go beyond the narrowly technical of the ‘what’ and ‘how’;

the tendency is to by-pass the ‘why’. In reality this means that typically post-lesson

observations tend to be limited to the affirmation of student teachers’ existing pedagogical

knowledge but offer little new sources of knowledge or meaning-making for students, thus

limiting opportunities for reflection. In line with this, co-operating teachers tend to dominate

in such discussions and closed-ended rather than open-ended questioning characterise the

interactions.

Typically too, co-operating teachers struggle to match feedback to the changing needs of

students and to individual student needs. They also find it difficult and are usually reluctant

to offer summative judgements on student performance, although the research shows they

sometimes do shoulder that responsibility. Some of the US research reported by Clarke et al

showed that co-operating teachers are unable to discriminate sufficiently among students and

that final judgements are often reduced to general impressions that give little or no indication

of individual differences across performances. Research by Trish Maynard in the English

context in 2000 suggests that the giving of feedback is also problematic for co-operating

teachers because it may negatively impact working relations. She found that mentors were

often reluctant to give feedback that might hurt their students’ feelings.

It is important to recognise that assessment of work-based learning is complex. It is about

assessing experiential learning which includes critical reflection on the student’s own

practice. We now know from the assessment literature generally that formative assessment is

vital for learning and equally for professional growth. Hattie and Timperly (2007, 81) argue

that feedback is one of the ‘most powerful influences on learning and achievement’ and can

be positive or negative while Gipps (2002) has argued that feedback in formative assessment

needs to enable the learner know what to do in order to bridge the gap between what they can

do currently and need to be able to do (Gipps, 2002). This is captured well in the following

quote from Sadler (1998, 84) who has been very influential in developing understanding of

formative assessment and feedback:

By quality of feedback, we now realise we have to understand not just the technical

structure of the feedback (such as accuracy, comprehensiveness and appropriateness)


30

but also its accessibility to the learner (as a communication), its catalytic and

coaching value, and its ability to inspire confidence and hope.

Co-operating teachers may not always be clear on what to assess and how to assess it. A

doctoral study conducted by Leo Kilroy (2016) in Ireland strongly highlights this especially

in the context of student teachers who are struggling on SP. His empirical study along with

several studies he reviewed are in agreement that the co-operating teacher should be carefully

selected and trained and that modelling of good practice and the provision of feedback should

be central to their role. A key recommendation from his study is the need to properly

resource the training of the co-operating teacher. Justifying his recommendation that funding

for ITE in Ireland needs to be increased, he cites work conducted by the OECD (2005) and

Sahlberg (2010) which highlight the link between teacher quality and government spending

on ITE (and teachers’ remuneration).

While University (HEI) tutors tend to have a more formal, summative, gate-keeping role in

assessment than school mentors/co-operating teachers, the former also formatively assess

students on placement. The research literature we have found for this review converges on

the tendency for HEI tutors to have a more judgemental role in assessment and to adhere to

templates that incorporate the key dimensions of practice.

A recommendation that emerges from the literature is that universities and schools need to

develop a shared view of what to look for during SP. What constitutes successful

performance and how is this communicated to STs in the form of feedback? Our research is

exploring this and we report on it below. In addition the literature would suggest that the

nature of the mentoring, a major component of which is formative discussion and feedback,

is a feature that requires ongoing support and evaluation.

2.2.4 OBSERVATION AND MODELLING OF PRACTICE

Some studies invited mentors or co-operating teachers to say what they thought they offered

student teachers on placement. According to one such study (Edwards and Protheroe, 2004)

which appears to be representative of others in the field, the major contribution they

described as ‘hands-on experience of daily practice’. Also a study by Moore (2003) showed

that co-operating teachers valued the following practice aspects above all others: lesson

planning, pacing and transitions, and classroom management.

One of the key emphases in the recent Irish policy literature from the Teaching Council is the

importance of observation and practice of teaching in a variety of teaching settings. It is


31

interesting therefore that some of the studies show that the modelling of practice for students

tends to result in students mimicing the practices they have had modelled for them. In this

sense practice is seen as ‘reproducible’. This is problematic as it could result in students not

learning to be adaptive and not being prepared to cope with complex and unpredicatable

aspects of classroom life. Such an approach would also close down opportunities for critical

thinking and more complex interpretations of classroom interactions. Some studies (e.g.

Huffman et al 2003) showed that the socialising influence of the co-operating teacher results

in the student teachers becoming ‘more custodial and controlling over their pupils’ (Clarke et

al, 2014, 181-2) thus reinforcing in the student teacher values of conformity, tradition and

buy-in to the current school/class cultural practices. There is strong evidence (Woodgate-

Jones, 2012; Maynard, 2001; Sultana, 2005) that student teachers seek to fit in to what they

perceive to be typical practice of their classroom teacher rather than introduce innovative

practices themselves. Sultana (2005, 233) notes: ‘Interaction with experienced teachers, while

potentially fruitful, tends to lead ITE students to become conservative in their approach to the

complex challenges of teaching. Instead of responsibility and reflection, acquiescence and

conformity to school routines become the order of the day’. As these researchers observe,

modelling themselves on the class teacher is not surprising to some extent since it links to

their desire to be approved by their school.

What the latter shows, in a more positive sense is the power of the co-operating teacher to

influence the repertoire of practices of the student teacher but also, and in a less positive

sense, that the co-operating teachers may be unaware of the scale of their own influence in

reproducing conventional and taken-for-granted practices.

A study by Sands and Goodwin (2005) for instance found that some co-operating teachers

struggle to demonstrate the attributes of critical judgement that are so highly valued by

programmes overall. This finding from the literature fits with the point about feedback and

summative judgements noted in the previous section. One study is especially interesting in

this regard: Graham (2006) distinguishes between ‘maestros’ and ‘mentors’. The former

exemplify and model practice for the student but, in addition to this, the mentor discusses and

analyses events and guides practice by providing time to reflect on what was observed. This

shift in approach is not simple or straightforward and needs to be enabled with the help of the

HEI tutor. Work by Stegman (2007) and others attempt to say what such a shift in approach

could look like but overall the evidence about this is thin. Unsurprisingly, the research shows

that where co-operating teachers got support and professional development to this end they

were able to extend student teachers’ reflective capacities and as a consequence be more

reflective about their own practice, a point we return to later in this Report.

2.2.5 RELATIONSHIP BUILDING

The literature on SP and in particular on the role of the co-operating teacher is replete with

references to the importance of relationships. Co-operating teachers themselves view the


32

relationship they evolve with their student teachers as second only to their own skill as

teacher. Thus, the research evidence shows that they put great emphasis on friendship,

collegiality, flexibility, open-mindedness and a welcoming attitude. A study by Glenn (2006)

for instance concluded that a focus on relationships is a major dimension of effective co-

operating teachers. The evidence points to the need to ‘collaborate’ rather than ‘dictate’, and

this requires a degree of ‘handover’ and a relinquishing of control to the student teacher. The

importance of the personal relationship can’t be overstated in the context of effective

mentoring and advising.

2.2.6 FOCUSSING ON THE HEI AND THE ROLE OF THE HEI TUTOR

As we noted above, the ultimate responsibility for the ITE programme, including the SP

element,lies with the HEI. This is a pattern we found across the studies. (As we show in the

next chapter it is also a feature of policy in many jurisdictions). In Ireland the HEI is

accountable to the Teaching Council for the professional accreditation and quality of its

programme. It is responsible for evolving and mediating appropriate school partnerships and

working relations with school staff who are involved with student teachers. The latter is a

significant shift in relations and responsibilities for it requires that the HEI staff locally set up

and locally manage nationally set expectations and requirements. Although they have such

responsibility for the partnership between the HEI and schools, the HEI tutors remain as

guests in the schools and so have to be highly diplomatic and sensitive to the priorities of

schools while striving to meet nationally and institutionally set criteria for the ITE

programme. Apart from the guidance and evaluation of the student teacher’s work within the

HEI and on the SP, the HEI tutor also has the task of ensuring the co-operating teacher

understands all administrative procedures and HEI expectations and requirements of the

programme pertaining to the placement.

The roles of both the co-operating teacher and the HEI tutor involve ‘supervision’ at some

level. Interestingly, Stones (1984, cited in Ní Áingléis et al, 2012 p.22, our emphases) refers

to the ‘supervising tutor’ as having ‘super-vision’:

First, acute eyesight to see what was happening in the classroom;

Second, insight to understand what was actually happening;

Third, foresight to see what could be happening;

Fourth, hindsight to see what should have happened but did not; and finally,

Second sight to know how to get what should have happened on the observed

occasion to happen at a future date.


33

Whether and how all of this happens in practice depends on many factors and is hugely

dependent on the expertise the different partners bring to the entire enterprise.

On the basis of our analysis of the available international research, it is reasonable to

conclude that a most influential aspect that the co-operating teacher may afford student

teachers is the modelling of practice, while one of the weakest aspects is the development of

the reflective, critical, research and evidence-oriented practitioner. It is imperative therefore

that the HEI tutor minimises the limitations and maximises the benefits of the school

placement dimension of ITE. A key role of the HEI tutor has to be the support of reflective

practice. Nearly two decades ago Andrew Pollard who has written extensively on this topic,

said ‘the reflective practitioner has emerged as the new Zeitgeist’ in teacher education

(Pollard, 2000, p.13). HEI tutors subscribe strongly to this since it is assumed it is reflection

and critical engagement with practice that enables the teacher deal with the unpredictable, the

complex and the ever dynamic nature of the social situatedness of classroom events. The

establishment of REX, the Research Expertise Exchange, as an online social network which

supports education research practitioners in Ireland to share research, seek support for their

work, raise questions, and explore opportunities for research collaboration may have some

potential in this regard. Initially funded by the National Forum for the Enhancement of

Teaching & Learning in Higher Education, this has been developed in partnership with Mary

Immaculate College, NUIG and UL. In-service, newly qualified and pre-service teachers

alongside teacher educators, higher education researchers, and other education professionals

can seek support through activities including: posting a query; sharing a research paper or

article. The establishment of this system holds promise for the facilitation of professional

learning opportunities, particularly around support, mentoring and professional learning on

School Placement. Very recently published research on research capacity in initial teacher

education shows that teacher educators in Ireland see research as important for the promotion

of teacher professionalism and critical reflection, being particularly enthusiastic about action

research and the development of student teachers’ practitioner-based research capacity

(Gleeson et al, 2017). These authors note how this perspective aligns well with the stance

adopted in the report on initial teacher education by the international panel (Sahlberg et al,

2012) who claim that teacher education entails ‘relying on research knowledge on the one

hand and focusing on preparing teachers to use and do research on the other’ (Sahlberg, et al,

2012, 15). Of particular interest is the finding in Gleeson et al that teacher educators

(especially in universities, where research productivity is vital for promotion) struggle with

the dual demand of being research active on the one hand and engaging in formation of

teachers with its associated school placement dimension on the other. As they note, this is

not just an Irish phenomenon but an international one and a theme we return to in the

conclusion since it emerges as an issue given the new arrangments for SP.

Bearing in mind the notion of a reproducible practice, noted above, which pushes student

teachers towards ‘fitting in’ to conventional practice of the classroom and the finding that co-

operating teachers struggle with the reflective and analytic aspects of school practice, it is

imperative that the HEI tutor is able to support and encourage students in thinking about and

implementing innovative and different approaches. As Hopper (2001) and others have

argued, the HEI tutor is best placed to encourage students to critique, examine, and reflect on

their own and others work and to make links with college-based work. Pollard and Tann

http://www.teachingandlearning.ie/

http://www.teachingandlearning.ie/


34

(1993) also argued this some time ago, and added that such discussions can be enormously

beneficial to student teachers and co-operating teachers alike.

In addition to the above a vital role of the HEI tutor in relation to placement is the indepth

evaluative role of the student teacher’s developing professional performance. The reluctance

of the co-operating teacher in the international literature to assume a major role in the formal

assessment of student teachers is entirely understandable given their main priorities as

teachers of pupils. HEI tutors have a much broader range of observational and assessment

experience on which to base their evaluations of performances (Ievers et al., 2013). As a

consequence, they have a more objective and generic position on a student teacher’s

development and can be more explicitly critical of their performances. Moreover, the HEI

tutor tends to have a different relationship with the student teacher since s/he is not working

alongside the student every day. All of these points on roles are well articulated and

recognised in the literature.

An assessment development at Stanford University in collaboration with the American

Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) is noteworthy although we have not

found empirical studies of its effectiveness or even of its operation in practice. It is

noteworthy because it may well illustrate one way of summatively assessing elements of

student teachers’ classroom performance in dependable ways. ‘Teacher Performance

Assessment (edTPA)’ is a multiple-measure assessment system aligned to state and national

standards that can guide the development of curriculum and practice around the common goal

of making sure new teachers are able to teach effectively. Having evolved the system,

Stanford University engaged ‘Evaluation Systems’, a branch of Pearson, as an operational

partner to the apparently wide educational audience that requested access to the system. It is

intended to evaluate how student teachers plan and teach lessons, and how they adjust

teaching to the needs of pupils. From what we understand it seems student teachers

themselves digitally record their classroom performance against various standards and submit

the evidence online for evaluation by tutors who do not have to physically go to the school to

see them perform. It is quite an evolved and complex system that may be worth further

exploration.

Overall, the research attests to the multi-dimensional role of the HEI tutor who is someone

who works with and knows all of the following: the student teacher, the co-operating teacher,

the principal, as well as a range of staff in the HEI institution itself. The literature shows how

the HEI tutor has to balance a range of circumstances, responsibilities, relationships and

institutional demands (e.g. Hopper, 2001). Depending on the jurisdiction and the different

national policy contexts (see next chapter), various types of partnerships and models exist

between HEI tutors/institutions and schools. For instance in England, a country which has

shifted the main responsibility for ITE from HE to schools, the HEI tutor may not even know

the student teachers, adopting more of a facilitative role with co-operating/mentor teachers or

with just a designated school co-ordinator who oversees the partnership between the school


35

and the HEI. It would appear that the practice of HEIs in England is hugely variable in terms

of range and effectiveness.

2.2.7 FORGING EFFECTIVE SCHOOL-HEI PARTNERSHIPS AND THE ROLE OF THE CT

An important feature emerging from the literature is the significance of partnership,

collaboration, communication and inquiry across schools and universities (e.g. Menter et al

2010; Zwozdiak-Meyers et al 2010; Darling-Hammond, 2006; Zeichner, 2006).

Traditionally, partnerships between schools and HEIs have not been formal although this

informality has not been without criticism (Ní Áingléis, 2012). The latter study sought to

evolve a more equal partnership between a HEI and local schools where teachers become

much more involved in the support of student teachers on SP. A previous international

review, commissioned by the Teaching Council, and conducted by some members of this

team (Conway et al 2009) concluded that internationally it is common for formal partnership

arrangments to be developed between HEIs and schools in order to provide structured support

and a gradual increase in responsibility to the student teacher although such partnerships vary

on a continuum from schools playing a host role to a school providing the entire training.

The call for more collaborative and inquiry-based approaches has been linked to the need to

educate student teachers (and teachers) to work flexibly in diverse settings and to support

inclusion. The studies assembled and reviewed for this Report point up a number of

approaches and practices used within HEI-School partnerships. An account of some these is

designed to illustrate ways in which, resources-permitting, HEIs and schools have sought to

build working relations in the interests of the professional development of student teachers on

SP.

2.3 STUDENT TEACHERS AS REFLECTIVE PRACTITIONERS RESEARCHING THEIR PRACTICE For many decades teachers and student teachers have been encouraged to become more

actively involved in researching practice. The notion of the reflective practitioner is one that

envisages teachers as professionals who interrogate their own and others’ practice to enhance

the quality of their students’ experience and to make decisions based on evidence and

analysis. While the action research movement can be traced back to the 1940s, there is a

renewed and revitalised emphasis on teacher action research in more recent times with

benefits accruing to teachers professionally and to student learning (Somekh and Zeichner,

2009). In Ireland (and elsewhere) we have seen a much stronger emphasis on systematic

inquiry and action research in initial teacher education programmes in recognition of the

increased complexity that characterises teaching. It is well accepted that technical skills alone

and passed down experiential knowledge are no longer sufficient (if they ever were) for the

kind of intelligent problem solving and analytic decision making that is needed in classrooms

(Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 2009; Willegems et al 2017). The current emphasis in Ireland on

research and reflective practice at all stages of the teacher education continuum aligns with

this thinking. There is evidence in the literature that student teachers’ inquiries into their

practice on SP can be a mechanism for enhancing school-HEI links and that the relationship

is two-way i.e. that partnerships are needed to enable student teachers on placement become


36

reflective and research-oriented. Feiman-Nemser’s (2001, 1042) captures this thinking well:

‘Although teachers need access to knowledgeable sources outside their immediate circle,

professional development should also tap local expertise and the collective wisdom that

thoughtful teachers can generate by working together’. This more recent vision of teacher

professional learning covers a range of inquiry approaches where teachers take responsibility

for their own learning, the ultimate aim being the improvement of their practice and the

enhanced learning of their students. In the Irish context ongoing teacher learning is now

encouraged through the COSÁN framework so it’s not surprising that at the initital stage of

teacher education there is now a strong emphasis on establishing a disposition of research and

inquiry and an appreciation of evidence-based practice. Again the REX initiative described

above seeks to promote such a stance. Hence classroom-based investigation and the

systematic study of one’s own practice are a focus of the new programmes nationally and

typically student teachers conduct a school/classroom based inquiry that inevitably involves

some collaboration with mentors/co-operating teachers and possibly other school staff. The

Teaching Council’s Research Strategy (2015) and its CROÍ initiative together seek to place

research at the heart of teaching and learning through promoting a culture of shared learning

in which research is encouraged and applied within the classroom setting. The CROÍ

Research Series of webinars, e-zines, various research meetings and events, electronic access

to key research and professional journals for teachers and HEI tutors has the potential to

support ST, CT and HEI tutor collaborations around inquiry in classrooms.

In the light of this new vision of the teacher we searched the literature for insights and

guidance on the area of student teacher as inquirer and researcher that might further inform

the Irish situation. We found little systematic evidence of the impact of teacher research but

at least one systematic review of the state of the art of collaborative teacher research

(Willegems et al 2017) yielded some important findings. Their analysis provides preliminary

evidence of the benefit of collaborative teacher research (involving pre-service and in-service

teachers) in relation to enhanced knowledge and attitudes towards: (i) collaboration, (ii)

reflection, (iii) inquiry, and (iv) student-centred learning.

It emerges that pre-service teachers learn more when the collaboration between both student

and co-operating teacher is a shared inquiry in a more equal partnership. A more equal

shared partnership between the student teacher and the mentor provides more opportunities

for joint ownership and also the student teacher appears to learn more when there are several

actors involved in the research activity. This outcome aligns with the work of Darling-

Hammond (2010) and Zeichner (2010) who talk about ‘hybrid spaces’ where several people

meet in a ‘non-hierarchical way’ and this in turn allows for the merging of theory and

practice (Willegems et al, 2017, 242). In those circumstances it seems collaborative teacher

research involving pre-service and in-service teachers ‘provides a perfect opportunity for ...

co-creation of knowledge for teaching’ (Willegems et al 2017, 242).

However, in this scenario mentor teachers are highly involved in the development of the

student teacher – they are educative co-learners who support pre-service teacher learning and

reflection, as models of teaching practice, and school-based teacher educators. In the Irish

context a HEI tutor, not the co-operating teacher, has the key role in supporting the student

teacher in mounting, implementing and evaluating their classroom-based inquiry. Clearly, the

involvement of the co-operating teacher as envisioned here would require more resources,

expertise and time than are available currently in the Irish system but ideally the co-operating

teacher could have a greater role.


37

Another message from the evidence would appear to be that for student teachers to really

value reflection and inquiry and get the maximum from it in terms of dispositional and

transfer to the new settings that they encounter, they need to have reflection and inquiry

modelled for them by their mentors/CTs. Given the many converging theoretical perspectives

on how people learn, especially how people learn in professional, experiential, work-based

settings as noted above, this emphasis on modelling is not surprising. Where the supervising

school-based mentor does not engage in an equal way in the reflection and inquiry process

the student teacher’s own ‘inquiry stance’ is not maximised. The important argument

emerging from these findings is that the co-operating teacher ideally is part of the research

team. This is of course a very complex issue as Willegems et al (2017) point in their

systematic review of the field. On the one hand it is risky as it can threaten the student

teacher’s learning through negative modelling – indeed it seems some student teachers picked

up negative attitudes from school staff and these students did not develop positive attitudes to

school-based research and inquiry, feeling that it did not contribute to their practice. On the

other hand, if the co-operating teacher is not actively involved the student teacher’s project

can become an isolated endeavour with little transfer into practice.

As our own empirical work shows (in later chapters) students on all programmes engage in

inquiries into their practice while on SP which are written up for examination by the HEI. In

the case of masters students, there is also a more indepth study of practice bearing on a

chosen topic of interest and relevance to the student’s practice that is approved by the HEI

tutor. It is noteworthy that the Dutch study already mentioned (Van Velzen and van der

Klink, 2014) describes ‘academic school-university partnerships’ where the student teacher

has to connect their research questions and focus to the agenda of the school and they are

encouraged to become members of a ‘community of teacher-researchers who share the same

research interests’ (12). These teacher researchers along with the ‘school-based teacher

educator’ support the student teacher in carrying out their study: ‘teacher-researchers who

conduct research and guide student teachers in their research activities are a new and

emerging phenomenon in Dutch education and the launch of academic school-university

partnerships promoted its emergence’ (12). It is being recognised that working together in

this way implies learning to understand each other’s language, what Bullough and Draper

(2004) and Wenger (1998) call ‘boundary crossing’ and certainly also involves a change of

culture in schools towards the notion of ‘inquiry as stance’ (Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 2009).

2.4 PARTICIPATIVE DISCUSSION ABOUT TEACHING AND LEARNING: LESSON STUDY

Originating in Japan, lesson study is a systematic investigation of classroom pedagogy

conducted collectively by a group of teachers rather than by individuals (Tsui and Law,

2007). There is compelling evidence that lesson study can have a positive impact. For

instance, Kotelawala (2012, 85) in a study of early career teachers showed that engaging in a

community of inquiry through lesson study ‘provided a rich structured format for teacher

candidates to focus on the complexities that are a part of fine-tuning teaching practices in the

classroom’. Two researchers from the University of Leicester (Cajkler and Wood, 2016)

adapted ‘lesson study’ to investigate classroom pedagogy in ITE and examined student

teachers’ perspectives of the experience. Although small scale in scope, involving 12 student

teachers in 8 secondary schools, we believe it is worth detailing in this review as it has


38

potential for developing pedagogic expertise not just on the part of the student teacher but

also on the part of the co-operting teacher.

Both student teachers and co-operating as learners here focussed on the improvement of

pedagogies rather than just the training of the prospective teacher. Lesson study can

contribute to the induction into a pedagogic team at departmental level. Drawing on the

learning theorist Wenger (1998) these authors showed that lesson study offered a structured

process of mutual engagement. While co-operating teachers led the process, student teachers

experienced a growing confidence and competence as teachers. These researchers highlight

the need for ITE to go beyond a list of teaching standards at an individual level and to

consider what it means to be inducted into a team of teachers in a subject department. They

point out the imporance of the school-based ‘community of practice’ and in this regard refer

to the need for what they call ‘pedagogic literacy’ on the part of student teachers. It is worth

quoting from their study as follows:

Specific but interdependent professional skills, for example, lesson planning, use of

questions and understanding of a huge variety of teaching approaches, contribute to

pedagogic literacy as do attributes such as commitment to professional growth and

engagement in reflection on practice ...Crucially, it also includes the ability to

interpret what is going on in lessons ... through a heightened, sharp awareness of how

learners respond to any teaching. This ability to read lessons is at the core of

pedagogic literacy. (Cajkler and Wood, 2016, 15.)

Their evidence pushes them to conclude that adaptations of lesson study in ITE provides a

sound interactive CPD opportunity for both student teachers and mentors to heighten

awareness of what is going on during lessons (see section 6 below). What is key throughout

in the case of their use of lesson study was the structured opportunities to discuss pedagogic

processes. As they rightly point out co-operating teacher - student relations are typically

characterised by observation and guided reflection where students and co-operating teachers

operate in a ‘parallel space’ planning alone as individuals and quite removed from teacher

members of the department. Lesson study, on the other hand, afforded opportunities for

holistic collaboration and sharing of developing expertise: joint planning, team teaching

approaches, observing, assessing and evaluating. As these researchers also noted, the adapted

use of lesson study stands in stark contrast to initiatives that focus on gathering evidence of

meeting lists of competences. In the latter they were referring specifically to the situation in

England where the prevailing official culture sees teaching as a set of discrete, government-

sanctioned competences (DfE, 2012). In an earlier paper by these same researchers (Cajkler

et al, 2013) they note with regret how the the responsibility for teacher education in England

is shifting away from university-led programmes towards school-led programmes for

example School Direct (DfE, 2013). This is the case despite official evidence from OfSTED

(2010) inspections that university-led teacher education is effective.

2.5 PARTICIPATIVE DISCUSSION ABOUT TEACHING AND LEARNING: PAIRED AND

MULTIPLE PLACEMENTS


39

In their systematic review of evidence Moyles and Stuart (2003) found strong evidence for

the role of constructive dialogue and found that placing two students together in a school

could support professional skills. Also Nokes et al (2008) investigated paired placements and

found that in such situations student teachers talked more extensively about pedagogy and

planning. At the very least, this line of inquiry suggests there is value in having more than

one student teacher placed in a school. Building on this research Sorensen (2014) examined

the efficacy of placing two students with the same subject specialism in the same school for

SP. This was an extensive mixed-methods study spanning four years and involving six HEI

school partnerships in England and indepth case studies with 20 paired or multiple

placements in a secondary school. Sorensen concluded that the use of peer placements

supported the development of higher level thinking and criticality.

However, a caveat to this conclusion is that there are so many variables, and schools

inevitably differ in so many ways, it is difficult to specify precisely the factors that actully

cause success. For instance the official discourse in some schools meant that students and

indeed teachers were not always free to exercise agency over matters of curriculum and

pedagogy since the official curriculum was tightly controlled externally. One might imagine a

similar scenario in Ireland especially in the upper stages of the secondary system when exams

dominate and influence curriculum and pedagogy so strongly. It would seem that in the

Sorensen study some teachers and student teachers were unwilling to consider alternative

pedagogies or learning strategies thus limiting the potential for using transformative

pedagogies. Where schools did not feel so bound by external influences and despite some

individual students being overly conservative (didactic) about teaching approaches the fact

that pairs of students were working together did encourage more experimentation

pedagogically and students did overcome resistence to examining new practices. In terms of

recommendations this research echos US-based studies (e.g. Darling-Hammond cited above)

that the selection of co-operating teachers is extremely important and that HEIs need to work

more closely with schools and especially with co-operating teachers to encourage the

dialogue about and reflection on teaching and learning.

A related approach to this notion of participative dialogue is co-teaching as defined by

Colette Murphy and her colleagues (Kerin and Murphy, 2015; Murphy, 2016). Co-teaching

offers a model of shared practice and shared responsibility where the pair working together

are on an equal footing bringing perhaps different expertise to the co-teaching act. This

approach has been applied to various curricular areas including science and music. In an

example of the latter Marita Kerin and Colette Murphy describe an initiative involving

BMusEd student teacher and generalist primary teachers co-teaching for an hour per week for

eight weeks. It was a collaboration between school and university which aimed to implement

and evaluate a reciprocal professional learning model incorporating co-teaching of music.

The central tenet of this approach is that student and teacher are both afforded the opportunity

to be teacher and learner simultaneously. In this case the student teacher was positioned as

expert musician and the teacher as expert pedagogue. Fundamental to its success was that

three phases of co-planning, co-teaching and co-evaluating had to be incorporated and time

protected so these phases could be enacted. Tacit assumptions about the what, why and how

of music education were rendered visible in the course of the initiative. The authors (Kerin

and Murphy, 2015) show how there was a positive impact in four professional dimensions for

the pairs involved: subject knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, curriculum knowledge, and

pedagogical content knowledge. Reflective journal entries that were a basis for its evaluation

showed a movement from description to more critical, analytical engagement with how to


40

teach music. Most importantly the initiative encouraged a movement away from merely solo

class teaching and built confidence and competence for greater sharing and dialogue about

practices.

2.6 PARTICIPATIVE DISCUSSION ABOUT TEACHING AND LEARNING: LEARNING IN

NETWORKS THOUGH ENQUIRY

Recently completed PhD research in Ireland by Alan Gorman (2017) illustrates the potential

of an online intervention programme to support reflection and enquiry on the part of the

student teacher and is another example of how effective links might be developed across the

HEI and the school. His study involved the design, implementation and evaluation of an

online intervention (Learning in Networks of Enquiry, LINTE) based on constructivist

learning theory and the notion of ‘inquiry as stance’. It afforded the opportunity to student

teachers to interact with peers, co-operating teachers and HEI tutors online. The evidence

showed that the resultant ‘hybrid space’ provided a valuable learning context where

knowledge of practice was generated and rendered highly meaningful to all concerned.

Students were highly appreciative of the approach to reflection offered in this space, seeing it

as more meaningful than what they perceived as the required extensive but isolated written

reflection more typical of their course. Of critical significance was the interventionist and

prompt responses of the HEI tutor here along with that of the co-operating teachers as ‘online

tutors’. The study concludes by offering a number of principles that could inform online work

for student teachers, two key ones being i) that collaborative reflection and enquiry should be

central to the experience and ii) that a partnership dimension should be central to the

experience where HEI tutors, co-operating teachers, and student teachers are working

together in a collaborative space. Of utmost important was the emphasis placed on

cultivating a safe space, which students perceived as vital to their successful engagement.

The approach provided an alternative to mentoring and blurred the hierarchies that are very

much entrenched in existing models of supervision (see Cochran-Smith et al., 2015). Students

valued this as a safe space and felt comfortable to raise questions in this online environment

that they may not have raised with their teachers or supervising HEI tutors.

Finally, some students perceived this space as complimenting the mentoring that they were

receiving in schools, while others felt that this was the mentoring space due to the lack of

such support in their schools. The cultivation of such spaces are critical for professional

learning for the following reasons: 1) it allows teacher educators to address perennial

problems in learning to teach, which can manifest during the practicum and 2) at the gates of

the profession, student teachers are engaging in making practice public through critical

dialogue within a community of learners (the hallmarks or signature pedagogies of teacher

professional learning, advocated by the Teaching Council).

However, to appropriately address the above, professional development for educators (co-

operating teachers and HEI tutors) is required, and such professional development should


41

provide a space for students to address their own life history biases, including their

apprenticeship of observation, alongside the challenges associated with learning to teach. It

might be argued that existing professional development for co-operating teachers heavily

concentrates on pedagogies of partnership or mentoring but fails to address pre-existing

beliefs or teacher educators' lay theories.

2.7 OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES IN SCHOOL-HEI PARTNERSHIPS

Forging effective partnerships is very complex work and the partnership agenda offers both

opportunities and challenges. The majority of the initiatives surveyed by White et al (2010)

require a shift in thinking as to who the teacher educator is, who they partner with and how

they partner. As they point out it requires that communities, schools and classrooms have to

be made ready for the change, it cannot simply be imposed. A few studies have described

and evaluated different forms of professional experience for students on initial teacher

education programmes. For instance the University of Sydney has evolved relationships with

a wide range of different schools in which their students are placed while at Deakin

University alternative professional experience models have been developed and trialled to

place student teachers in a range of school and community settings with a curriculum model

of ‘place-conscious’ education. At the University of South Australia, ‘learning circles’ are

designed in which a group of student teachers, placed at the same school, meet regularly after

school to engage in professional dialogue. The intention is that they share classroom

experiences, listen actively to their peers and ‘use enabling questions to encourage deep

learning and understanding about teaching’ (White et al 189). In this way they are taking

more responsibility for their own learning and accepting that they have a role in the learning

of their peers and in this process develop the skills of ‘effective participation in learning

communities’ which is intended to stand them in good stead throughout their careers.

The value of using partnership in teacher education has a long history as described by

Zeichner (2010) in relation to the US and Furlong et al (2000) in the case of England and

Smith et al (2006) in the case of Scotland. We have already noted a number of different

approaches in ITE from the separatist higher education and school work through to more

overlapping approaches and yet more formal partnerships where school staffs have agreed to

take on specified roles and responsibilities within the HEI-school partnership. In the latter

case the complementarity of the different forms of professional knowledge contributed by the

HEI and the school is acknowledged and given equal recognition (see Smith et al 2006). The

existing research literature would suggest that there are some features that are important for

effective school-university partnerships. These are summarised in (Bain et al 2017, 539): that

the conditions for collaboration and partnership are clearly expressed and carefully

negotiated; that there is appropriate recognition that the work norms for each partner are

different and that account has to be taken of this; time has to be allowed for collaboration to

develop; and, that the partner leaders work actively to sustain the partnership. Above all

partnerships have to be resourced (Bloomfield 2009).


42

A recent comprehensive review of school-university partnership initiatives (Breault, 2013

cited in Bain et al) identifies several risks to their effectiveness and viability. One is the

shrinking of resources and stakeholder change before good working relations can be

established and consolidated. Another risk arises if teachers and lecturers who participate in

the partnership are not sufficiently valued by being given adequate time for their innovative

work. On the other hand what would appear to enhace partnership working is when staff

teams work jointly on course development and delivery so that a theory-practice distinction is

no longer relevant.

A study of the development of school-university partnership conducted by researchers at the

University of Aberdeen offers some useful insights in this regard. Following the Donaldson

Inquiry in Scotland and the government’s acceptance of its many recommendations along

with additional funding, the School of Education at the University and the local authority

were encouraged to work with schools to build ‘better relationships over placement in ITE’.

They also considered ‘alternative ways of assessing placement’ and ‘more sharing of course

delivery between school and university staff, as well as considering flexible school/university

appointments (Bain et al 2017). This context was the starting point for the development of the

partnership between the University and local education authority (LEA) with local schools. In

this case it is interesting to note that while the LEA tended to look to the university to drive

the partnership, the instinct of the HEI was to aspire to a collaborative approach anticipating

(rightly) that teachers and their professional associations would be reluctant to assume wider

professional responsibilities. On the basis of their evaluation of their own partnership, these

researchers emphasise the importance of ‘strength of purpose’ and having shared medium

and long-term goals and the importance of ensuring that funding is available to meet the

purposes. A further lesson learned from their experience is the imporance of partnerships

being stable ‘involving a university and a consistent set of local authorities and/or chains of

schools’ (551). They found that this secures trust and confidence from personnel working

together over a sustained period of time. This very point is well acknowledged in all studies

bearing on school-university partnerships. For instance Kari Smith (2007, 290) notes:

its implementation requires time, a thing which is not in surplus to school-based

teacher educators and which university staff feel is spent at the expense of research,

meaning less promotion opportunities. Time is not only required during the initial

implementation, but after that, it is also a major factor in sustaining the model.

A qualitative study conducted on initial teacher education students’ experience of SP in

Scotland (Aderibigbe et al, 2016) places a value on the apprenticeship conception of

mentoring and argues how this conception needs to be acknowledged better by teacher

educators. The study argues for the importance of ‘adequate guidance’ to student teachers in

order to strengthen their professional learning and career development. Overall, these

Scottish authors note that while collaboration, partnership, joint working are held up as core

aspects of the reform agenda in teacher education in Scotland, the empirical evidence

unfortunately does not conform in that vision. Collaboration is not evident at the level


43

assumed or hoped for by the policy makers. For this to happen the researchers call on HEIs

and school leaders to initiate reorientation programmes promoting mentoring as a

collaborative process and they recommend that clarifications of expectations of aims of

partnership (between HEIs and schools) and expectations regarding roles of mentors,

students, HEIs be communicated and shared.

A mapping of the existing research since 1980 sought to identify characteristics of well-

functioning models of partnerships between universities and schools in teacher education

(Lillejord and Borte, 2016) that coincide with the above. The authors conclude that models

of partnership in teacher education, require stronger academic leadership and more engaged

leadership from schools than is currently evident in the studies of partnership practice.

Importantly, they conclude that if schools and teacher education institutions are to benefit

from the partnership, they have to work together in ways that both parties perceive as

meaningful. They say:

Partnerships must be designed so that they support innovative and intellectual work.

Partners must fully understand what the partnership expects of them and how they

may contribute. Concrete, collaborative projects energise and strengthen partnerships

and transparency alleviates tensions and distrust among partners (560).

Like other researchers, they emphasise that teacher education institutions and schools are

basically different communities with different cultural and historical traditions and how this

reality has to be understood and acknowledged. It is essential that both partners agree on

principles and practices. Harford and O’Doherty (2016, 47) in similar vein, based on their

analysis of relevant literature, and with more direct attention to the Irish context, call for

partnerships that ‘promote shared ownership of the process, agree pedagogic principles …

and clear division of roles and responsibilities’. In sum, there is strong convergence across

the literature about the complexity and conditions for effective partnership working in initial

teacher education.

2.8 RELATIONALITY, EMOTIONALITY AND COMMUNICATION

While research specifically on SP in ITE is limited, recent studies do show the significance of

issues to do with relationships, emotionality and genuine dialogue and communication (e.g.

Clarke et al, 2012; Conway et al, 2011; Dolan et al, 2009; O’Grady, 2017) in the professional

development of students on initial teacher education programmes.

One feature common across many of those studies we found is the emotional aspect and allied

to that the relational dimension of learning to teach on SP. This echoes work conducted in

Ireland by Morgan et al (2010) and Kitching et al (2009) on beginner teachers and by Kilroy

(2016) on student teachers. In the Dolan et al study students exhibited a range of positive and

negative emotions including joy, happiness, satisfaction, pride, fear, uncertainty and frustration.

More positive experiences in their study were linked to their growing capacity to motivate and

encourage children, to hold their attention and to direct their learning, capacities. As the


44

authors say these skills ‘signify an emerging professional identity as teacher’ (Dolan et al 2009,

29). Their study showed that ‘conflicting expectations’ appeared to be at the heart of negative

experiences which translated to their sense of inadequacy in relation to subject methodology,

flagging the need for student teachers, especially primary student teachers who have to teach

the range of subjects, to have substantial training in domain-specific pedagogies. Arguably the

extension of the programmes may have facilitated this though it is clearly an area meriting

further research in the Irish context into the future.

What is key is that learning to teach is indeed an emotional journey where the relational

aspects are very significant. Since part of the learning involves working with ‘third parties’ in

an educational context, working relations with a range of professionals and parents, not to

mention students, become pivotal. How student teachers are supported in the areas of

working with third parties like special needs assistants and other school staff will be

examined later through the empirical component of the report.

An Australian qualitative study of the experience of the co-operating teacher documents the

wide range of differing emotions directly related to the practicum role (Hastings, 2004).

These include guilt, responsibility, disappointment, relief, frustration, sympathy, anxiety and

satisfaction. The findings point to the importance of relevant players recognising and

publically affirming that the practicum involves ‘an expanded set of emotions’ (144) for the

co-operating teacher as well as the student teacher. Teachers in the Hastings (2004) study

consistently noted the lack of time as the most significant factor hindering an effective

practicum by which they meant lack of time to dialogue with the student teacher, meet with

university staff and also meet with other relevant colleagues about the student. Indeed the

study concludes by arguing that much of the negative emotions associated with the practicum

from the perspective of the co-operating teacher stems from limited time for the co-operating

teacher to effectively support the student teacher as they would wish. This issue is often

exacerbated when there is also very limited time for the co-operating teacher to meet with

university staff to develop their own mentoring skills and their own understanding the

practicum. However, this study also highlighted the perception among the co-operating

teachers interviewed that they rated the opportunity to mentor student teachers as a genuine

professional development opportunity for themselves and staff in their schools.

The research, in general, emphasises the powerful role of emotions in teacher/co-operating

teacher relations (mentee/mentor) where, in our case, mentor can be co-operating teacher and

HEI tutor. Communication is most critical. The quality of the mentoring relationship is

central to good teaching. A two-year study conducted in New South Wales and an Australian

univeristy explored the experiences and perceptions of both mentors and pre-service teaching

during SP (Sheridan and Young, 2017). The study argues that genuine conversation, defined

as those conversations where partners are equal rather an one person leading, is an important

enabler of professional learning. Such conversations need to happen between mentee, mentor

and others in the school to share experiences, expectations and to negotiate responsibilities.


45

Such conversations are essential to allow the student to feel accepted and a sense of

belonging in the setting. They were deemed to be vital for building trust and reciprocal

commitment. In such conversations students were able to make connections between personal

learning, prior understandings, current experiences and their mentors’ expectations of them.

Understanding expectations and being explicit about them is unsurprisingly key and genuine

conversations with mentors are needed for this understanding.

2.9. STUDENT TEACHER PERSPECTIVES

While this entire report focusses on the student teacher on SP, it is appropriate to consider

some additional research that attends to the perceptions of student teachers more specifically.

This is especially important in the context of our empirical work later which probes the

experiences and perspectives of student teachers on different programmes in the country.

Students appreciate their SP experience and recognise the significance of the professional

growth they experience. The literature, however, shows that there is considerable diversity in

the nature of mentoring with limited opportunity for mentors/co-operating teachers to have

mentor training and as a result many lack the necessary skills to maximise the learning gains

of students on SP.

As research in UCC has shown (Hall et al, 2012; Conway et al, 2010) over the past couple of

years, the status of student teachers in schools is complex: they are at once teachers and

learners; they are negotiating professional, academic and personal aspects; intellectual and

emotional issues arise for them and have to be managed. The Irish research shows that

students struggle with these tensions and the HEI tutor has to mediate in the interests of the

student’s learning. The co-operating teacher, on the other hand, has to privilege the learning

of pupils which can, as we noted above, be a source of tension for the student teacher. The

HEI tutor is tasked with enabling the various players appreciate the world from the

perspective of the other, in other words to be a broker in the interests of maximising the

professional learning of the student. The student teacher needs to have a range of different

professional experiences in different schools. The research on their perceptions, concerns and

challenges during SP is summarised now.

Within the complex professional and informal contexts of SP, the student teacher’s own

understanding and perception of his or her role can be problematic and negative, including

feelings of vulnerability, conflict and confusion with regard to different teaching philosophies

and a struggle for acceptance leading to possible withdrawal (Johnston, 2010); self-doubt and

evaluation anxiety (including feeling over-assessed by cooperating teachers and under

assessed by HEI tutors) (Kyriacou and Stephens, 2010; Kilroy, 2016) worries about the

prospect of professional fading or fatigue (Poulou, 2007); and stress around what the student

teacher perceives as unrealistic HEI tutor expectations (Stephens, 2006; Halford, 1998).


46

Research also highlights the variability of support students experience on SP and it questions

the impact of workplace socialisation on the pedagogical learning of student teachers

(Johnston, 2010). As an example, Johnston’s study highlights the problematic nature of the

traditional understanding of student teachers as apprentices who learn through productive

interaction with more experienced colleagues as this leads to the unproblematic

conceptualisation of the relationship between the participants in SP. Research completed with

student teachers themselves reveals that aspects of their relationship with co-operating

teachers which they find problematic include co-operating teachers relating to them as

students rather than teachers; providing intrusive support when the student teacher is in

control of the class; not accepting another teaching style as different rather than wrong; and

generally just “hanging around too much” (Stephens, 2006). There are implications here for

the nature of professional development of the co-operating teacher and a role for the HEI in

supporting this process.

Research with student teachers themselves also highlights quite clearly the concerns and

challenges student teachers face daily while on placement (Johnston, 2010; Kyriacou &

Stephens, 2010; Maynard, 2000; Poulou, 2007). While these can be extensive and varied, for

the purpose of this report, we summarise the main challenges they face as follows:

the negotiation of social and professional interactions in school contexts;

becoming accepted as a learner, a person, a teacher and a part of a profession;

negotiating power and control and the handover of same;

managing negative feedback and generally, being assessed;

achieving adequate support within a general school culture of busyness;

learning how to deal with and understand emotions and emotional responses, their

own and those of others;

negotiating the contextual issues such as finding classrooms, dealing with extensive

paper work;

uncertainty whether to imitate or invent teaching approaches in the classroom;

general tiredness and coping with a heavy workload; and,

confusion over how to do reflection on their school experiences.

In a study of sixteen student teachers Kyriacou and Stephens (2010) present the following

pedagogic areas of concern to them:

dealing with disruptive behaviour;

becoming a disciplinarian;

getting the teaching right;

getting the planning right; and,

teaching about sensitive issues.


47

It is also interesting to keep in mind that students can sometimes feel like neither students nor

teachers and this can be very difficult. Positive school placement experiences include

situations where student teachers felt welcomed and began to feel valued and a sense of

belonging (Johnston, 2010). Accomplishments are seen in the research as taking

responsibility, developing confidence and creating an orderly classroom (Kyriacou and

Stephens, 2010).

This line of research has many implications for their experiences on SP and their

development and negotiation of personal and professional identities. It would seem that the

kind of relations that students forge on SP with their colleagues significantly affects their

capacity for professional growth in a range of ways. These insights on the role and concerns

of student teachers remind us again that schools are complex sites of and for learning and a

student teacher’s sense of identity is affected through the different patterns of interactions

experienced in and around the SP. Emotions are the basis on which many student teachers’

decisions are made and the kinds of interactions experienced by them influence whether these

emotions are positive or negative. Student teachers need social and professional scaffolding

on SP, and where they do not develop a sense of belonging, there is a lack of loyalty,

commitment, confidence and self-efficacy.

For student teachers SP is not only about skills and competencies but also about learning how

to develop productive working relationships with trusted colleagues, something which could

be reflected more in ITE programmes. Allowing student teachers to share their experiences of

placement with each other can also alleviate stress (Gorman, 2017). Just as it takes an entire

village to raise a child, it takes an entire school to educate a student teacher (Ussher, 2010)

and some research indicates that a range of support from a variety of colleagues and sources

would be beneficial for students (Johnston, 2010). Recent research (Trent, 2013) also calls

for a critical perspective on SP grounded in identity theory to reveal and address problems

around the relations and interactions within schools that may interrupt, in ways described

here, an appropriate identity development of the student teacher.

2.10. RECOGNISING TENSIONS AND THE NEED FOR CPD FOR ALL

In general co-operating teachers/mentors say that they benefit broadly from the experience of

being involved in supporting student teachers on school placement and we found many

studies which show that co-operating teachers value highly their own engagement with

colleges and universities as a result of working with student teachers (e.g. Edwards and

Mutton, 2007). Yet tensions can arise not least between the role of the co-operating teacher as

teacher of pupils and as mentor of student teachers. This is one tension that requires

recognition: the research evidence is compelling about acknowledging this reality when HEIs

invite co-operating teachers to work with students on placement. The fact is that ITE is far

from the main focus of the work of a school and this is of particular note in the context of co-

operating teachers’ repeated claims about lack of time and resources. In addition, the obvious

positive commitement in the literature on the part of the co-operating teacher to the role is

matched by a recognition that the role involves emotional as well as intellectual labour and

that the former is often not sufficiently acknowledged. Bullough and Draper (2004) argue

that the emotional investment of the teacher needs to be foregrounded in any discussion and

arrangements around the role in order to ensure warm, working relations are sustained over

the period of the placement. This also has implications for how co-operating teachers are


48

chosen for the role – whether on the basis of suitability or availability. A further tension is

that which arises between the student teacher as learner and teacher. In additon there are the

various bureaucratic demands of the HEIs which challenge traditional relations between HEIs

and schools e.g. the need for student teachers to observe practice to mention but one.

While contradictions and tensions should be recognised and made part of discussions with

tutors and co-operating teachers (and indeed students, as appropriate) there is also potential

within those same tensions for growth and professional development for all concerned.

Meetings between HEI tutors and co-operating teachers allow for linkages and networking,

articulation of within-class and within-school practices that ‘deprivatise practice’ (Cochran-

Smith, 2012) in a way that extends professional dialogue, inquiry and thinking. On the basis

of their research with some 60 school mentors in England, Edwards and Mutton (2007, 517)

suggest the focus on student teachers as learners poses new opportunities for schools to be

more outward-looking and oriented towards ‘mutual engagement’ than is normally the case.

Other possibilities include deeper pedagogical discussions about effective teaching (Douglas,

2012; Hattie, 2012) such as the use of specific tools for interrogating shared (perhaps videod)

lessons e.g. lesson study as already noted (Cajkler, et al 2013).

Research at the University of Nottingham’s School of Education (Youens et al, 2014) shows

that the use of video capture as a tool for reflection on and analysis of classroom practice

with an increasing focus on pupil learning can benefit learning and working relations across

mentors, HEI tutors and of course student teachers. The Nottingham research demonstrated

the ‘systemic benefits to the partnership to the quality and nature of relationships between

university tutors, mentors and student teachers’ and has a ‘transformative effect on the

quality and nature of school-based discussions’. (p108). It seems too that discussions between

mentor, tutor and student disrupt perceived ‘hierarchical boundaries’ and enable more

genuine learning partnerships.

A very interesting study conducted in the Netherlands (Coninx et al, 2013) about giving

performance feedback on teacher competence to pre-service teachers offers valuable

guidance that would benefit both co-operating teachers and HEI tutors alike, especially if

they were to collaborate in such an endeavour. In the Dutch study the authors explain the

importance of performance feedback that is immediate, specific and goal-oriented and they

describe a system of ‘synchronous coaching’ – a mechanism for giving immediate on-the-

spot feedback about actions and decisions of the pre-service teacher. Their intervention study

with 30 student teachers outlines and evaluates the process of using keywords to give

immediate feedback to students. We mention this study as an example of the potential basis

for professional discussion that might usefully occur among tutors and teachers about how to

provide effective feedback on performance. Hudson and others, on the basis of their own

empirical findings, point to the need ‘to teach co-operating teachers and HEI tutors skills and

strategies to facilitate professional conversations that lead towards improving teaching

practices’ (Hudson, 2014, 71). Peter Hudson refers to the scene of an event like a road

accident and the many different observations that can be reported by onlookers requiring


49

independent assessors to determine the reality. The implications of such inconsistencies

highlight the need for more than one person providing feedback on the student’s pedagogical

practices in order to obtain a more balanced view of performance. Several researchers,

including the Dutch authors noted above, call for a bank of research-tested mechanisms to

assist in the more consistent, valid and equitable provision of feedback.

As far back as the early 1990s researchers advocated that teachers view themselves as co-

constructors of knowledge and co-enquirers into practice. Maynard and Furlong (1993, 82)

and Hargreaves and Fullan (2000, 55) have argued that mentoring should move away from

the uni-directional dispension of wisdom towards shared investigations into pedagogical

practice. With particular reference to the US, Zeichner (2006 and 2010) argues for close

integration of the SP within ITE programmes and the need for mentoring programmes based

on this principle. This attunes well with the Donaldson Report (2011, 90) in Scotland which

says that the school experience should do more than merely provide opportunity to acquire

classroom skills but should provide ‘the opportunity to use practice to explore theory and

examine relevant research evidence’. It also attunes well with the policy context in Ireland.

Research by James Conroy and others at the University of Glasgow (Conroy et al, 2013)

points to the significance of the ‘cultural shift in professional practices’ that is needed if

theory and practice are to be properly integrated in school placement. They recommend a

systematic programme of professional development for all involved in order to maximise the

potential of the school placement. This is interesting as their evidence points to the need, not

just for professional development for co-operating teachers, but for the HEI tutor as well,

since roles, relationships and identities of all are involved in and are pivotal to the coherent

support of the student teacher.

2.11. CONCLUSION

Research internationally highlights the importance of SP. Increased time in school,

appropriate mentoring, feedback and constructive dialogue would all appear to be important.

Good working partnerships between HEI and schools are also vital for the success of the

student teacher on SP but the development and sustaining of effective partnership is complex,

resource-intensive work.

Having diverse and extensive opportunities to learn the art, craft and science of teaching is

important. The extension of the Irish ITE programmes along with the emphasis on

contrasting experiences would appear to align very well with the literature. Having the

opportunity to work in different settings and with different teachers including co-operating

teachers and non-teaching staff exposes students to a range of ideas about learning and being

an effective professional and extends their community networks. The opportunity to explore

the wider context of the placement setting (Ussher, 2010) encourages student teachers to

learn from all of the following: peers, students, school-based staff, parents and university


50

tutors. The diversity of contacts and settings maximzes chances for observations, reflection,

theorising and co-constructing knowledge. In addition student teachers need to feel a sense of

belonging in the practice school, they need to feel integrated into the culture of the setting

which in turn suggests the importance of an extended placement that allows for building

strong working relations both with pupils and with staff that can be sustained over a period.

A major message from the diverse, international literature is that both the HEI and the school

are fundamental to the professional development of the student teacher and that how they

relate, share and integrate their various contributions matters hugely. Both the HEI and the

school are needed to enable the integration of theory and practice and the notion that theory is

associated with the HEI and practice with the school is totally outmoded since both settings

involve both theory and practice. It is vital that assignments and assessments of student

teachers are not demarcated as HEI-based or school-based – work set for student teachers

should ideally link with both settings.

Opportunity to observe teachers teach is vital but the literature would suggest that on its own

it is inadequate. Observation needs to be balanced with opportunities to reflect on and discuss

observed practice. This is the hallmark of the reflective practitioner. The literature reviewed

would suggest that to be a reflective practitioner, reflection needs to be modelled by the

school staff as otherwise it is simply not valued by the student and not taken with them as

part of their identity into their future practice.

It would seem that while co-operating teachers tend to have strengths around the ‘what’ and

‘how’ of practice, HEI tutors tend to address the ‘why’. One recommendation for the

development of partnerships is that professional development of the co-operating teacher

would focus also on the ‘why’. Such work may involve, as in the Dutch example, greater

presence of HEI tutors in schools working alongside teachers and student teachers. Any such

development would of course have resource implications and the question of resources crops

up throughout the literature since quality mentoring inevitably requires investment in those

tasked with doing it and it cannot be assumed that good teachers are automatically good

mentors for student teachers. Co-operating teachers need ideally to be carefully selected and

trained for their roles. Training in mentoring is important but clearly training in matters of

research/inquiry and innovative practices would also appear to be relevant in view of

tendency of student teachers to want to mimic the practices of their co-operating teachers.

This review highlights significant aspects that are probed further in the fieldwork and

reported in later chapters. The next chapter looks in more detail at specific models of

placement, drawing on both empirical and policy literature in a number of selected countries.

This also helps to examine policies and practices in Ireland.


51


52

CHAPTER 3: MODELS OF SCHOOL PLACEMENT: FEATURES OF

INTEREST

3.1 INTRODUCTION

In any comparison of models of school placement from other countries, the aim is not to

impose ideas in any way, but to consider how aspects of the models might apply in the Irish

context. Although we have selected countries and jurisdictions of similar population size to

Ireland, we avoid presenting exact comparisons of each case. Rather, we focus here on

selected details of policy and practice that we consider to be innovative or of interest, and

especially in light of the forthcoming fieldwork aspect of this study. While population size is

one starting point for comparison, a second is that the education systems in question are

already somewhat familiar to those in the teacher education sector in Ireland for various

educational, cultural, historical and linguistic reasons. These are: Scotland, New Zealand,

Singapore, Finland, and Western Australia. All have population sizes of 4-5 million, although

Western Australia is approximately half of that.

The features of various models regarding school placement that we have chosen to highlight

in this chapter are (i) the level of regulation; (ii) the locus of decision-making (iii) details of

requirements; (iv) duration, sequence and progression of placement blocks; (v) student

teacher tasks and responsibilities; (vi) supervision, assessment and feedback; (vii) roles of co-

operating teachers, HEI tutors and others; and finally, (viii) idiosyncratic features of SP that

may be relevant to our research.

3.2 REGULATION, LEGISLATION AND AUTONOMY As the impetus for this research has begun with the regulatory authority for teacher education

in Ireland, we sought to ascertain the nature and level of regulation in each of these countries

and jurisdictions in the first instance. In light of increased calls for accountability and

professionalism in teacher education, regulatory bodies have emerged in many education

systems across the globe. With this has come the standardisation and accreditation of

programmes of ITE in general, together with specific requirements for school placement in

particular. From Scotland’s General Teaching Council established in 1965i to the Teacher

Regulation Branch of the Ministry of Education in British Columbia, Canadaii, established in

2012, regulatory authorities are a response to public demand for a need to reform, foster,

maintain and promote public trust in the teaching profession. Models of school placement lie

at the heart of such demands where the theory-practice nexus is played out according to the

desired reform of particular times and places.

Many of the teaching councils identified operate within a legislative mandate, such as an

education act (e.g., New Zealand, 1989), a teachings act (e.g., British Columbia, 2012iii

), a

teacher registration act with subsidiary legislation to address the accreditation of initial

teacher education (e.g., Western Australia, 2012iv

), and relevant updating regarding

qualifications (e.g., Finland, 2005; Scotland, 2012v). While specific legislation does not

govern ITE in Singapore, the model of practicum is based on a tripartite partnership between


53

the National Institute of Education, the Ministry of Education and the schools (Kwong,

personal communication, 17 Dec 2014)

3.3 LOCUS OF DECISION MAKING IN RELATION TO SP Models of school placement generally emerge from a process whereby the regulatory

authorities accredit the ITE programmes offered by the various providers through validation

and review. Typically then, the regulatory authority proposes the broad outline while the

provider—a university—presents the detail according to the programme’s rationale. The

number of providers varies in proportion to the population depending on the country or

jurisdiction. In Scotland (5.3m), for example, there are 8 approved providers in the university

system for primary and secondary teaching, and 1 approved university from outside

Scotlandvi

, in New Zealand (4.47m) there are 16. Singapore (5.3m) has just 1 HEI for teacher

education while Finland (5.4m) has 8, and Western Australia (2.5m) has 5. The extent to

which the frameworks proposed by the regulatory authorities are interpreted by the ITE

provider and in turn, interpreted by the main actors: student teachers, co-operating teachers

and HEI tutors, is a function not only of the number of providers within the jurisdiction or

country, but as we have already emphasised, the particular social and cultural norms of the

society in question.

The idea of setting up a Teaching Council first emerged in Scotland in 1961 and this was

formalised in the passing of the Teaching Council (Scotland) Act in 1965 when concerns

were expressed about unqualified teachers working in schools and the lowering of entry

requirements to the profession. Over the years, the powers, remits and duties of the Council

have progressed through the passing of other legistation relating to higher education as well

as standards in schools. In Scotland, it is a legal requirement for all teachers to be registered

with the General Teaching Council Scotland (The Requirements for Teachers (Scotland)

Regulations 2005)vii

.

The National Institute of Education (NIE) in Singapore is the sole teacher preparation

institute in the country. Singapore is a centralised city state where high-stakes examinations

provide the main driver for student success. Morris and Patterson (2013) report that teachers

are selected from the top third of the academic cohort and only one in 10 applicants are

admitted. Teachers are valued by Singapore society and successive policies have built on this

culture. To this end, teachers are paid during their studies and 75% of course fees are

subsidised for those studying for a master’s degree. Teachers are also paid some stipend

every five years.

In contrast to Singapore, external standardised student testing does not drive the education

system in Finland and neither does it employ a rigorous inspection system; rather, the

Finnish system relies on the expertise and accountability of teachers who are knowledgeable

and committed to their students (Sahlberg, 2010). However, similar to Singapore, the work of

teachers is highly valued and respected in Finnish society. The national administration of

education and training has a two-tier structure: the Ministry of Education and Culture is the

highest authority and is responsible for all publicly funded education in Finland while the

Finnish National Board of Education is the national development agency responsible for

primary and secondary educationviii

.


54

The Education Council New Zealand (New Zealand Teachers Council until July 2015 [])was

established as a Crown Entity in 2002 and although teacher educators are not represented on

its governing body, they have played active roles in the development of the Council’s Code

of Ethics (2004) and the Graduating Standards for Teachers (2007/2015). It is with respect to

this latter document that new and existing programmes are approved, monitored and

reviewed. Within this, seven major standards under three broad headings (professional

knowledge, professional practice, and professional values and relationships) are identified.

Institutions are required to demonstrate how their programmes meet these standards within

the conceptual frameworks of their individual programmes. Alcorn (2014) reports that there

has been ongoing tension around the cost and prescriptiveness of the approval processes and

efforts by the NZTC to control issues such as student selection and practicum organisation

(NZTC, 2010), creating a perception that institutional quality assurance processes are less

relevant (Alcorn, 2014).

3.4 DETAILS OF REQUIREMENTS: FROM GENERAL TO PARTICULAR

In Scotland, the Standard for Provisional Registration (SPR) specifies what is expected of a

student teacher seeking provisional registration with General Teaching Council Scotland

(GTCS). The SPR draws from the standard for (full) registration and is differentiated

according to expectations of student teachers. The SPR is presented as three broad,

intersecting areas that address: (i) Professional values and personal commitment; (ii)

Professional knowledge and understanding (comprising curriculum; education systems and

professional responsibilities; and pedagogical theories and practice) and (iii) Professional

skills and abilities (comprising teaching and learning; classroom organisation and

management; pupil assessment and professional reflection and communication). These

requirements are prescribed in a very detailed way in the guidelines for approval of

programmes of ITE.

In Australia, professional standards for teachers are provided at state and federal levels. In

Western Australia, the standards encompass three broad areas: Professional Knowledge,

Professional Practice and Professional Engagement. Similar to Scotland, each of these is

subdivided into more specific standards that address planning, preparation, relationships, and

teaching and learning. An example of the further subdivision of this document may be found

in the handbooks of one of the university providers, e.g., the University of Notre Dame. Here

the Professional Experience Programme (school placement) is structured in such a way as to

ensure that student teachers develop the domains of knowledge, practice and commitment

documented in the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (University of Notre

Dame, 2014ix

).

In New Zealand, the Graduating Teacher Standards are specified by the Education Council

of Aotearoa New Zealand (2015). Again, similarities with Scotland and Australia can be

observed in the structure which is presented as: Professional Knowledge, Professional

Practice and Professional Values and Relationships, encompassing seven specific standards

that are presented in poster format and are therefore readily accessible for teachers

In Finland, while there are no prescribed standards for trainee teachers, there are three

national curricula: Core curriculum for pre-school Education (2003), Core Curriculum for

Basic Education (2004) and Core Curriculum for Upper Secondary School (2003) which


55

schools adhere to very closely. At the same time, teachers have a high degree of autonomy in

Finland and are trusted to deliver the best possible education for their pupils. Nevertheless,

universities collaborate to some extent in establishing agreed criteria for school placement

(e.g., the Finnish TTS network [FTTS, 2011]). As Raiker (2011, p. 6) observes:

The general view in Finland is that teacher education is best delivered through

universities organizing and controlling teaching practice through on-site or proximal

TTSs. This approach is underpinned by a philosophy based on social metapractices

evolving from European traditions of education and socio-political developments in

the Nordic countries…

Thus, we see in this example from Jyväskylä Teacher Training Schoolx, the thrust and detail

of the SP programme lies with the university. Here, as in other TTSs in Finland, emphasis is

placed on the application of theoretical knowledge to practice in a functional connection

between the teacher training school and the department of teacher education. Teaching

practice follows an experimental approach where the teacher trainees research their own work

and the process is supported by well-qualified and experienced supervisors. As stated in

Jyväskylä Teacher Training School (2012):

The three central elements in teacher education are theory, practice and experience.

That is also why constant self-reflection is an important part of the studies. The

purpose of the academic teacher education is to examine these elements and their

relations. These relations form the core of the studies on all courses, especially in the

instructed practices.

In Singapore the NIE provides formal teacher education within an academic setting, and

schools take on a more active role in practicum, school connections, and other collaborations

that strengthen the link between university-based learning and real classroom settings (Tan,

Liu & Low, 2012). The other critical and essential feature of this model is that it is more

research-driven and evidence-based, and is therefore more responsive to school and

practitioner needs in terms of key concerns within the school setting. The NIE’s enhanced

practicum model is built on five key tenets which state that practicum is: an integrated part of

a coherent program; provides opportunities for purposeful mentoring from experienced

teachers and university supervisors; allows preservice teachers to develop their teaching

competency through graduated responsibility and opportunities for practice; assessed through

clearly defined standards that go beyond pedagogical content knowledge; and, strives to

develop thinking teachers with the use of planned and structured reflections, and focused

professional conversations.

3.5 DURATION, SEQUENCE AND PROGRESSION OF SCHOOL PLACEMENT Aside from Finland where the standard qualification for initial teacher education is at

master’s level in a 5-year programme, the standard entry to teacher education qualification is

largely through undergraduate (3 or 4 year) programmes and postgraduate (1 or 2 year)

programmes at primary and secondary levels. Several countries require up to 30 weeks of

school placement over the course of four-year programmes. In postgraduate programmes, the

specified number of weeks ranges from a minimum of 7 weeks (in Western Australia), to 14

(in NZ) or up to 50% of the programme (i.e. 18 weeks in Scotland). Generally speaking, SP

experiences are designed to be progressive in nature with task expectations moving from

observation in the first experience to later, working in small groups. Midway through the

placements, a teaching load of 50% may be expected and this progresses to 90% of the


56

teaching load in close collaboration with the co-operating teacher by the end of year 4.

Graduate programmes typically present a more compact version of this model. The

assumption of responsibility for 100% of the teaching load does not appear to exist in the

models studied, even if student teachers are prepared to assume such responsibility on

completion of their programmes.

In Scotland, for four-year programmes, it is required that at least 30 weeks be devoted to

school/educational placement experience, and further, that more than half of this experience

occur in the final two years of the programme, with a substantial block taking place in the last

year. Blocks of practice are also required for the 36-week full-time postgraduate programme,

where a block of at least four weeks is required to take place towards the end of the

programme.

Blocks of placement also prevail in Finland as the example from the University of Jyväskylä

(Table 1) illustrates below. Since 1979, the standard qualification for teachers in Finland is a

master’s degree completed over five years, and thus school placement reflects this model.

Table 3.1: Finland: University of Jyväskylä 4-year programme

Example of a 4 year programme

Year 1: 108 hrs = c20 days = c4 weeks

Year 2: 81 hrs = 15 days = 3 weeks

Year 3: 81 hrs = 15 days = 3 weeks

Year 4: 270 hours = 50 days = 10 weeks

Year 5: 162 hours = 30 days = 6 weeks

Total: 26 weeks

New Zealand specifies a minimum of 20 weeks of practicum across a 3 or 4 year

programme, and a minimum of 14 weeks of practicum in a one-year programme. Block

placements are again specified for ITE providers where they are required to include at least

one, 3-week (minimum length) block of practicum in the first two years of 3 or 4 year

programmes. To enable student teachers to demonstrate sustainability in their final teaching

practicum, there must be a minimum block of three weeks, with a total practicum time of five

weeks all in the same school or centre. This enables a model of single whole days spread

across a number of weeks in conjunction with a three week block (NZTC, 2014).

For accreditation at state level, Western Australia requires programmes at graduate or u/g

level to have at least 45 days satisfactory supervised teaching practice undertaken at a

primary or secondary school, or other recognised educational venue in order to meet

accreditation requirements. This is interpreted differently by the university providers

however, as can be seen from the examples of the University of Notre Dame and Edith

Cowan University (Table 2). In both cases, the placement duration is well beyond the

minimum requirements.


57

Table 3.2: Western Australia: 4-year programme

University of Notre Dame Edith Cowan University

1st yr – Semester 1: 1 week 1

st yr Semester 2: 3 week block

2nd

yr – Semester 2: 9 week block 2nd

yr Semester 2: 5 week block

3rd

yr – Semester 2: 10 week block 3rd


4th

yr – Semester 2: 10 week block 4th


Total: 30 weeks

Total: 24 weeks

Graduate Programme: 10 week block Graduate programme: 7 week block

In Singapore the practicum at NIE generally takes the form of a shorter period of placement

in schools for “school experience” and “teaching assistantship”, and longer durations for

block teaching. The duration of each component varies from programme to programme, and

at different stages of the initial teacher preparation (Kwong, 2014) (See Table 3 below).

Student teachers are attached to schools for blocks of time so that they can develop teaching

competencies in a variety of contexts and at different levels.

Table 3.3: Singapore: Example of a 4-year programme at NIE

Year Detail

1st yr: School Experience (SE) 1 week in a primary school, 1 week in a secondary school,

both after the first year of study; no teaching is involved.

Purpose: to provide student teachers opportunities to

observe lessons in the primary and secondary classrooms

2nd

yr: Teaching Assistantship

(TA)

5 weeks in either a primary or secondary school depending

on specialisation track; assisting school teacher in doing

some teaching

Purpose: to provide student teachers opportunities to

observe their Cooperating Teachers (CTs) teach and to

reflect on the roles and responsibilities of a teacher. They

will also be given the practical experience of helping their

CTs plan lessons, prepare resources, manage pupils and to

do some assisted teaching.

3rd

yr: Teaching Practice 1

(TP1)

5 weeks; independent teaching begins

Purpose: to help student teachers to begin to teach

independently. They learn to plan their own lessons to

teach, prepare relevant resources and to manage pupils

independently while still being able to consult their CTs

and to observe their CTs teach.

4th

yr Final Teaching

Practicum

10 weeks in the second semester in year 4

Purpose: Besides focusing on independent teaching, TP2

allows for a more holistic school attachment experience

which includes exploring other aspects of a teacher’s life,

such as, the management of CCAs.

Total: 30 weeks


58

(Liu, Tan & Salleh, 2014) report that

Although the term ‘teaching practice’ is in use in NIE, the NIE practicum model sees

teaching as a complex ‘professional thinking activity (Calderhead, 1987), where

emphasis is placed on providing opportunities for pre-service teachers to practice, and

at the same time reflect about their practice and their profession. The practicum

provides a platform for inquiry, for trying ideas, and for talking about teaching and

learning with their peers and their mentors (e.g., Shultz, 2005).

3.6 RANGE AND DIVERSITY OF EXPERIENCES The New Zealand Teachers Council specifies that student teachers must experience

practicum placements across a range of socioeconomic, cultural and (ECE/school) learner age

settings. The extent to which this objective is realised in other settings is unclear.

According to Raiker (2011), the concept of diversity is relatively new in Finnish pedagogy.

However, with the changing demographics in Helsinki and the more densely populated South

West of Finland has seen increasing immigration. As a result, faculties of education have

begun to use municipal schools as well as university teacher training schools for placements

to ensure that student teachers have experience of teaching pupils from diverse backgrounds.

Thus, there appears to be a move, at least at policy level, to partially “outsource” school

placement to schools other than those connected directly with the Teacher Training colleges

to locally run schools. According to the Ministry of Education, Finland, (2007) partial

outsourcing of teaching practice is seen as desirable in bringing increased diversity to the

placement experience.

3.7 STUDENT TEACHER TASKS AND RESPONSIBILITIES The breadth of student tasks and responsibilities is specified by many of the regulatory

authorities. The General Teaching Council Scotland for example requires ITE programmes

to develop in student teachers broad knowledge of the nature and range of additional support

needs, effective ways of supporting those with such needs and knowledge of inclusion and

equalities legislation in Scotland. Specifically, it states that school experience placements

must provide the practical context to illustrate and develop the skills, understanding and

content being developed in the ITE programme.

In New Zealand, the NZTC (2014) requests that practical teaching experiences must provide

evidence that the student teacher has been actively supported to: integrate theory and practice

throughout the programme, to plan, implement, assess, evaluate and reflect on their teaching

practices, to analyse and interpret practices they observe in schools or ECE centres in relation

to research, theories and other knowledge gained throughout the programme, to reflect on

their own learning and practice to develop personal and professional goals.

In Singapore, student teachers at the NIE are given specific observation and reflection tasks

in the newly-enhanced programme to help them make theory-practice connections (Kwong,

2014).

Student placement handbooks from the University of Notre Dame, Western Australia,

illustrate the detail of tasks required by students in the first days of the first week of


59

placement, and thereafter for each week of each placement. Guided observations, analysis

and reflection support the student teacher in assuming ownership of and responsibility for

their learning, even when placed up to 3,000km from their home ITE institution.

3.8 SUPERVISION, ASSESSMENT AND FEEDBACK In New Zealand the Teachers Council’s (2014) requirements are that a student teacher be

visited on a number of occasions in the first two years of a 3-year programme, and the first

three years of a 4-year programme to observe the student teacher teaching and across

transitions in the programme/day routines. In the final year of the programme visits are

normally expected to be of a longer period of time, on at least three occasions.

NZTC also specifies that the major proportion of visits on school placement be conducted by

teacher educators who teach in the ITE programme in which the student teacher is enrolled,

and that all visiting lecturers/staff must be ITE staff who are teachers registered in New

Zealand. Furthermore, in order to underline the importance of the partnership model of

school placement, and to establish meaningful and genuine dialogue with the associate (co-

operating) teacher, the ITE provider is required to provide a briefing on the focus and context

of the practicum for the associate teacher/s involved in the practicum. A focus on working

effectively with adult learners is required as part of this advice.

In Western Australia, the specific roles and responsibilities of the actors involved in SP can

be found in the university handbooks, for example, the University of Notre Dame’s

Professional Experience Handbook (2014). Here the roles of all personnel are outlined in

detail: the Preservice Teacher, the Supervising Teacher (co-operating teacher), the Tertiary

Supervisor (HEI tutor), the Head of Professional Practice (HoPP) and the Professional

Experience Office. Aside from the usual matters of planning, teaching and learning, and

professionalism, the co-operating teacher is expected to

provide timely oral and written feedback to the Preservice Teacher regarding teaching

and learning outcomes and recommendations for development; communicate with the

HoPP or Tertiary Supervisor and advise him/her about the Preservice Teacher’s

performance, especially where there are concerns about unsatisfactory progress (At

Risk) in terms of meeting Australian Professional Standards for Teachers –

(Graduate); and complete Interim and Final Evaluation Forms of the Preservice

Teacher’s performance (University of Notre Dame, 2014, p. 7)

The role of Head of Professional Practice or HoPP fulfils the function of the HEI tutor when

a school is located at considerable distance from the ITE. The HoPP plays a pivotal role in

enhancing the learning, teaching and professional development of the student teacher and is

the first point of contact for co-operating teachers. As well as coordinating the induction of

the student teacher into the school, the HoPP liaises with the co-operating teacher regarding

the progress of the student teacher and supports the co-operating teacher in arriving at a

consensus decision for the student teacher’s final grade and the compilation of the written

final evaluation form (UND, 2014).

In Finland the work of the supervisor draws on one’s own profession as a teacher; on the

aims that are strived for in the classroom, and on how the work takes place (Kalaja, 2012). In

terms of role, the supervisor is expected to know himself/herself and to be conscious of his or

values and ideals in order to be able to guide others objectively. The task is part of a national


60

educational endeavour which is mindful of the potential of the new teacher and the influence

he/she will have over the course of a career.

The supervisory relationship is defined by common values and aims of the community as

well as those of the curricula. The supervision is based on each student’s individual starting

point and capabilities. It is considered dialogic in nature, respectful of matters of

confidentiality, and consists of reflecting and reasoning together. Guidance is offered in a

manner that mirrors learning in the classroom, where reflection and thinking are considered

essential for one’s personal growth. It is believed that the notion of “a good teacher” cannot

be taught or imitated, rather is co-constructed in the dialogic space between the supervisor

and student. In this process, the student teacher receives feedback before, during and after

teaching. He or she can also give feedback on his/her experience and this feedback is

reclaimed in developing future actions.

In the NIE in Singapore, feedback is offered by NIE supervisors, co-operating teachers, co-

ordinating mentors, and other experienced teachers. Here, the provision of frequent formative

feedback is considered to be at the heart the NIE practicum model. The feedback model is a

three-stage clinical one involving a pre-observation conference, an observation of the lesson

itself and a feedback conference. Supervisors use the Assessment of Performance in Teaching

(APT) form to guide their observations. The purpose of the APT form is to provide student

teachers with “an objective and accurate account of the lesson under observation” which then

forms the basis for further discussion in a post-lesson conference (Liu et al, 2014, p. 117).

3.9 ROLES OF CO-OPERATING TEACHERS, HEIS TUTORS AND OTHERS The most recent policy developments in Scotland reflect a renewed commitment to

partnership models between schools and education authorities. The GTCS (2014) notes that

within partnerships, placements must be jointly planned with the roles and responsibilities of

staff clearly defined. It is recognised that each of the partners has particular priorities, roles

and responsibilities and these are delineated in documents such as Teaching Scotland’s

Future (Donaldson, Scottish Government, 2011) and Teaching Scotland’s Future – National

Partnership Group: Report to Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning

(Scottish Government, 2012). In the latter document it is envisaged, for example, that school

based staff would have “the prime role in the assessment of students while on placement”.

The report goes on to say that “local partnerships will determine whether this role should be

given to teachers or university staff embedded within schools or an authority”. Ultimately,

the GTCS and the Scottish Government are committed to keeping the quality of arrangements

for partnership under consideration (GTCS, 2013).

Similarly, in New Zealand, the school placement is underpinned by a partnership model

between the ITE provider and a fully registered associate teacher. Roles are made explicit,

and throughout the experience, the student is actively supported to achieve the aims of the

programme. Student teachers are assessed by the visiting lecturer (HEI tutor) in consultation

with the associate (co-operating) teacher. To enable associate teachers to fulfil their roles and

responsibilities, CPD is provided by the ITE institution.

In the NIE’s enhanced practicum model in Singapore, school-based mentors play a

significant role in helping to prepare and develop the pre-service teachers. During practicum,

student teachers are supported by purposeful mentoring from experienced teachers, known as


61

cooperating teachers (CTs) (who are not paid for their work), through modelling, co-

planning, systematic observations, repeated opportunities for practice, and frequent feedback.

Student teachers are also guided by School Coordinating Mentors (SCMs) through structured

reflections and professional conversations. In addition, their university-based supervisors

provide focused supervision, systematic observations, and regular feedback.

3.10 OTHER IDIOSYNCRATIC FEATURES OF SCHOOL PLACEMENT PRACTICE, POLICY ETC. OF

INTEREST

Coordination of School Placement

In the University of Notre Dame (2014xi

), Australia the Professional Experience (School

Placement) Office Staff are delegated by the Dean of Education to organise placements for

Professional Experiences. Preservice Teachers are not permitted to approach

Schools/Principals/Teachers independently. Preservice Teachers are given the opportunity to

list preferences and conflicts of interest. Preservice Teachers are required to complete a

Preference, Conflict of Interest and Subject Form (PCS Form) on enrolment.

In June 2012, GTC Scotland assumed responsibility for the system of placing students

undertaking Initial Teacher Education courses into schools. For the past eight years this has

been done through the Practicum system. Practicum has now been completely replaced by the

new Student Placement System (SPS) which went live on 19 May 2014xii

. The new system

incorporates:

The facility to calculate journey times by both private and public transport

Ability to match students to suitable schools according to University set criteria

A set of processes and procedures which will ensure that Local Authority

Coordinators maintain control and management of their placements

A number of automated processes within the system to facilitate efficient and

transparent communication through the use of automated emails

The facility to run statistical reports allowing for analysis and trend spotting

A dedicated training environment for users

The creation of dashboard style interfaces for different user roles to facilitate data

management and system processes

SPS is designed to be intuitive and highly user-friendly, able to integrate with other GTCS

systems and processes whilst coping with new models for placing students which are

important because of the changing landscape within Scottish education, post-Donaldson

(2011).

Pre-placement Experience

In the one-year Postgraduate diploma (PGDE) in Singapore, there is only one block of

teaching. However, student teachers in the PGDE programme are attached to schools for the

‘Enhanced school experience’ before the formal teacher education programme commences.

This experience, which is structured like an early clinical experience, provides an image of

what teaching involves and requires. It also helps the student teachers make sense of how the

theories they learn subsequently in their coursework fit in the process of developing their

practice.


62

School Placement and Professional Development

In Australia, Supervising Preservice Teachers is a nationally delivered, online professional

learning programme for Australian teachers. It aims to enhance teachers’ knowledge, skills

and confidence to effectively supervise preservice teachers. The Supervising Preservice

Teacher program was developed in partnership with the New South Wales Institute of

Teachers (NSWIT) and the Queensland College of Teachers (QCT) and launched in April

2013. Registration is free for Australian school education professionals. Supervising

Preservice Teachers is made up of 4 online, flexible learning modules which gives teachers

the knowledge, skills and confidence to effectively supervise preservice teachers (AITSL,

2014xiii

). In 2015, an independent evaluation of this project reported that respondents found

that the online medium was an accessible and appropriate format to deliver consistent

training nationally. Moreover, teachers reported that the programme improved their capacity

to support preservice teachers and provided them with greater confidence to do so (AITSL,

2015)xiv

.

In Singapore the NIE works closely with the School Coordinating Mentors, CTs and NIE

supervisors through orientation, workshops, learning forums, focused group discussions and

on-going interactions to ensure that the school-based mentors and university–based

supervisors share the philosophy of NIE’s teacher education programme and the vision of

developing a thinking teacher, and that they are clear about the goals of the clinical

experience and understand the structure and process of practicum. In fact, many school-based

mentors are senior teachers who have gone through a six-week full-time Senior Teacher

Course, which provided them with an in-depth understanding of what their pre-service

teachers are learning in the teacher education programme. The theory-practice link is

strengthened when these mentors are able to impart theoretical understanding of practice that

is consistent with what their pre-service teachers have learned in their courses” (Liu, Tan, &

Salleh, 2014).

3.11 SUMMARY This section drew attention to issues of regulation of school placement, the implementation of

requirements, the duration, sequence and nature of programmes, expectations of student

teachers and the roles of co-operating teachers in the process. Common features that are

evident across various jurisdictions are:

Regulation of teacher education that is underpinned by specific legislation;

Extended programmes of initial teacher education with concomitant, extended block

placements;

Expectations of teachers as supporters and supervisors of student teachers, and as

enablers of professional conversations as part of their duties and responsibilities;

Partnership between schools and HEIs as an essential element in realising the aims

and ambitions of SP.


63

CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH DESIGN

4.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter describes the research design for the School Placement in Initial Teacher

Education (SPITE) study. It starts by offering the reader an overview of the scale and scope

of the study. This takes the format of two large tables, one prose-based, detailing the various

questions and issues the research sought to address alongside their associated research

objectives and research methods; the second table offering a sense of the scale of data

collected. The chapter then goes on to describe the components of the study: the desk-based

review of literature; rounds one and two fieldwork; and cases/samples of good practice. The

chapter explains the sampling process, the data gathering and analysis methods, including

piloting and revision of instruments. It provides some information on the background of

participants and finally reports on quality assurance and ethics.

4.2 SCALE AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY Table 4.1 shows the key aims and tasks of the study, along with the objectives, and questions

to be addressed. The nature and scale of the evidence sought to address these issues is also

indicated. Table 4.2 indicates the scale and scope of data collection but see the description for

additional fieldwork later in the chapter. Table 4.3 summarises the samples and scale of

evidence by each case setting separately. This duplicates detail in Table 4.2 but it provides an

overview regarding each case over the period of the project.

A rationale and description of the key elements of the study follow on from these tables.


64

Table 4.1: Aims, Objectives/Questions, Evidence and Research Methods

Key Aims/Tasks Objectives Source of Evidence Research Methods

1. Review existing documentary and research literature

(e.g. Teaching Council documentation as well as international published literature on school placement)

To examine and synthesise existing policy, empirical, and theoretical literature, from national and international sources, relevant to the placement component in initial teacher education, including studies that would illuminate good practice.

Lit Review and Documentary

Analysis

Searching, assembling, analysing and synthesising existing, relevant policies, perspectives, and empirical findings relevant to school placement.

2. Investigate evidence of current practice of school placement

To describe and analyse practices used in schools (e.g. time spent on placement; number of visits from tutors; nature of feedback from tutors and co-operating teachers; nature of relationships between supervisors and co-operating teachers; HEIs and schools more broadly?) To provide evidence of how practice aligns with TC policy specifically in relation to opportunities to observe and participate in wider aspects of school life. To evidence experiences students have on placement and to compare this across settings e.g. primary/post-primary. To track any changes in approaches and practices and to identify the main factors influencing change, development and sustainability issues.

Rounds 1 (2015/16) and 2 (2017) Fieldwork: Surveys, Interviews, Observations

Interviews and questionnaire surveys with student teachers, HEI tutors, co-operating teachers, and school principals; where possible the same HEI tutors were interviewed twice over the period of the study to track any changes. Other groups were interviewed / surveyed twice over the period of the study. Observations of supervisory/feedback sessions with students. Interviews with students and tutors and co-operating teachers.

Focus group interviews were convened as far as possible with the same participants one year later to track attitudes and experiences over time.

As above.


65

3. Examine the range and type of professional development experiences made available to tutors and co-operating teachers

To provide data on CPD to promote effective supervision and support for the student teacher on placement and to explore extent to which such provision is offered to tutors and co-operating teachers together.

Rounds 1 and 2 Fieldwork

(Surveys, Interviews)

Mainly semi-structured interviews and surveys of stakeholders.

4. Investigate how different key groups i.e. students, co-operating teachers, tutors, including Directors of School Placement, and principals experience the new arrangements for placement.

To provide evidence of the attitudes, understandings, views of these groups about their particular experience of the new practices, in particular evidence of how effective they felt their experience of placement (or supporting placement) was. To provide evidence of the nature of non-teaching activities which student teachers experience To track the extent to which these experiences, attitudes and views change over the phases of the study.


Interview data primarily but some evidence from Questionnaire Surveys also Comparative analysis over the period of the study. Focus group interviews with mostly the same participants enabled tracking of attitudes and experiences.

5. Identify examples of good practice that might usefully be shared across HEIs and schools paying attention to harmonised approaches that can take account of the diversity of providers.

To examine practice in light of TC policy guidelines, in light of existing research literature, and in light of current school and HEI realities and to provide portrayals of effective practice across the sectors that could be used as case study material for professional development.


+ Case Based Additional

Component

Based on analysis of fieldwork data and examples sought / offered

6. Examine the effectiveness of the new partnership model of school placement as it evolves and the extent to which there is a harmonious approach nationally or regionally

To establish how schools and HEIs have adhered to the TC requirements and guidelines. To establish the degree to which students, co-operating teachers and HEI tutors believe student teachers are well prepared for their chosen career.


Focus group interviews, questionnaire survey data and evidence from observations.


66

7. Make recommendations to

Council in the context of

review of policy with

particular reference to

specified aspects: minimum

duration of the extended

placement in the second half

of the programme; minimum

period of time on direct

teaching; nature of non-

teaching activities;

appropriate settings; practical

innovations to improve

placement experience and

process.

To provide evidence of stakeholder perceptions on these particular issues. Based on the systematic evidence assembled and analysed, provide empirically-grounded recommendations to the Council.

All components


67

* In total 50 CTs completed questionnaires in Round 2, the majority of whom took students from more than one ITE provider though all six of our sites are well represented in the sample.

**18 Principals/DPs completed questionnaires but these respondents were not specifically chosen because they were attached to these case study programmes. See full explanation below.

***The ST evidence from this site is from students on a concurrent programme in both rounds of fieldwork. However, the tutors typically worked on their consecutive and concurrent programme and thus commented on both as appropriate in interviews.

****13 student interviews were from PME Primary

Table 4.2: Breakdown of Evidence by Case Settings: Round 1 (R1) and Round 2 (R2) Fieldwork

Cases Prim Post

Prim

Consec Concur N

Interv’s

N

Interv’s

N

Interv’s

N

Interv’s

N

Q’s

N

Q’s

N

Q’s

N

Q’s?

N of tutors

represt’d

R1(R2)

N of STs

represt’d

R1(R2)

N of CTs

represt’d

R1(R2)

Prins

R1(R2)

HEI tutors

R1(R2)

STs

R1(R2)

CTs

R1(R2)

Prins/DP

R1(R2)

1 A √ √ 2 (2) 11 (6) 6 (4) 2 (2) 54 (44) 60 (149) 6 (*) 1 (2)

2 B √ √ 13 (6) 12 (0) 8 (6) 3 (1) 13 (6) 11 (25) 5 (*) 2 (0)

3 C √ √ √ 12 (2) 14 (8)

+13****

2 (6) 2 (3) 14 (6) 40 (58) 0 (*) 0 (0)

4 D √ √*** √ 6 (4) 34 (10) 3 (2) 1 (1) 18 (1) 24 (10) 1 (*) 1 (0)

5 E √ √ 7 (13) 12 (16) 3 (4) 2 (2) 1 (13) 34 (94) 2 (*) 0 (2)

6 F √ √ 12 (10) 12 (12) 14 (6) 1 (1) 12 (10) 66 (74) 3 (*) 2 (0)

Totals 51+36 95+65 36+28 11+10 112 (80) 235 (410) 17+50 6+4

Grand Totals 87 160 64 21 192 645 67 10+18**


68

Table 4.3: Overview of Samples and Evidence

Represented Programme

Interview Data

Questionnaire Data

Case A

Primary Concurrent

HEI tutors 4 98

STs 17 209

CTs 10 6

Prins/DPs 4 3

Case B

Primary Concurrent

HEI tutors 19 19

STs 12 36

CTs 14 5

Prins/DPs 4 2

Case C Primary Concurrent

and Primary

Consecutive

HEI tutors 14 20

STs 35 98

CTs 8 0*

Prins/DPs 5 0

Case D PP Concurrent and

Consecutive

HEI tutors 10 19

STs 44 34

CTs 5 1

Prins/DPs 2 1

Case E PP Concurrent (and

PP Consecutive)

HEI tutors 20 14

STs 28 128

CTs 7 2

Prins/DPs 4 2

Case F PP Concurrent

HEI tutors 22 22

STs 24 140

CTs 20 3

Prins/DPs 2 2

*see first footnote to Table 4.2


69

4.3 LITERATURE REVIEW A literature review was conducted to inform all aspects of the fieldwork but also to establish

what was known internationally (and nationally) about the importance, nature and approaches

to school placement in initial teacher education. Research that would shed light on effective

practice was particularly relevant to the searching and analysis of studies. Thus, existing

policy, empirical, and theoretical literature, from national and international sources, relevant

to the placement component in ITE, including studies that illuminated good practice, were

examined and synthesised. The review started in 2014, early in the life of the project, and was

developed over time. Chapter 2 represents an up-to-date synthesis of the current state of the

evidence on SP, with particular reference to influences on the success of the placement

experience. To illustrate some of the policies on SP in other countries a documentary analysis

of policies on SP in a selected number of countries was also undertaken and this is reported

on in Chapter 3.

4.4 ROUNDS 1 AND 2 FIELDWORK: SAMPLING, INSTRUMENT DESIGN, PILOTING Given the aims and objectives as outlined in Table 4.1, we sought to represent the range of

ITE provision across Ireland. We sought to do this in a way that would be manageable in

terms of data analysis within the timescale and resources of the project, and sufficiently

representative to enable us to draw reliable conclusions based on the evidence assembled and

analysed. The intention was to provide empirically-grounded recommendations to the

Teaching Council on these on various aspects of SP.

Clearly, it was important to include the key participants associated with SP in the study,

namely, student teachers (STs), HEI tutors, co-operating teachers (CTs) and school

principals. Their views and experiences were central to addressing the issues and questions

listed in Table 4.1. It was decided to use case study methodology to investigate the

perspectives and experiences of these groups and to capture data from them on two occasions

over the period of the study, with a view to assessing the extent to which the new

arrangements on SP were bedding down. What we did not, could not, set out to do was

conduct separate case studies of particular programmes with a view to profiling each

programme as an entity. Practically and ethically this would have been very problematic, a

point returned to below.

Six different programmes in six different HEIs were finally selected on the grounds that,

while all providers were at an early stage in adopting the new changes, these programmes had

a sufficiently developed structure for us to expect continuity of commitment to the project

over the study period. We also targeted a seventh programme as security in the event of one

of the six programme sites not being able or willing to continue through with both rounds of

fieldwork. Initially leaders associated with that seventh programme agreed to participate but

despite high levels of contact with it subsequently, that provider did not participate in any

round of fieldwork. Another important criterion in selecting the participating programmes

was that the main settings in which ITE occurs should be represented: primary/post-primary;

consecutive/concurrent; undergraduate/postgraduate, specialist/mainstream; Dublin/outside

the capital. We aimed for a range of types of providers and a geographical spread. Thus, a

sample with a diversity of settings was secured which represented the range of provision


70

nationally. The identity of ITE programmes finally selected remains confidential to the

research team. Their main characteristics for the purposes of the study are summarised above

in Table 4.2.

As the fieldwork progressed it became clear that while we had identified 6 programmes (3

primary and 3 post primary) we had the opportunity to represent additional programmes since

HEI tutors in particular (but also school staff) had experience of taking students from that

setting who were on consecutive and concurrent programmes. In those cases (see Table 4.3)

we took advantage of the additional information that was offered by HEI tutors, most of

whom appeared to tutor consecutive and concurrent STs on SP. So for instance, Case 3

allowed us to collect data bearing on primary consecutive and primary concurrent

programmes and in this case we interviewed samples of STs on both programmes.

Within each of the six settings agreement was forthcoming from leaders and directors of SP

that access to the key groups noted above would be feasible. The perspectives and

experiences of these groups would be the major, but not the only, source of information in the

study.

Questionnaires and interview schedules were prepared and piloted in the light of the ongoing

literature being reviewed, the new policy on SP in Ireland, and feedback from members of the

Teaching Council and from volunteers who formed part of the pilot studies of the instruments

but who were not part of the main study. Data collection instruments went through several

iterations and with some changes introduced in the second round of fieldwork, mostly

changes to better clarify questionnaire items but also to add some new items such as whether

or not student teachers were doing extra teaching in schools beyond the requirements of their

HEI and being paid for same.

Major areas featuring in all instruments adhere to the aims and objectives noted above in

Table 4.1, for example the following:

Securing School Placements

The 10-week block (extended SP)

Feedback and Assessment

Observation of Practice

Reflective Practice

Contribution to the school

Links between HEI and schools (Partnerships)

4.5 ROUND 1 AND 2 FIELDWORK: DATA GATHERING PROCEDURE IN MAIN CASE

SETTINGS


71

Fieldwork began towards the end of the 2014 calendar year and ended at the beginning of the

2018 calendar year. Table 4.4 reveals the sequence and nature of data gathering in each round

of fieldwork. In the case of each ‘visit’ (with the exception of the courtesy visit) for round

one fieldwork, we aimed for two members of the research team to do the fieldwork together.

This happened in most cases and it proved helpful in checking consistency, in ensuring

quality in our procedures, and in conducting preliminary analysis. Some visits involved the

teams in several days of fieldwork. In round two fieldwork it was not feasible to always have

pairs of data gatherers working together and in any case the need for such checking could be

done within our own research meetings at that stage.

The timing was of fieldwork was designed to understand experiences and to capture any

changes and developments over the four year period of the study. The research team met to

discuss emerging issues and to identify themes to be explored in subsequent interviews. The

repeated cycle of data collection and analysis is characteristic of an interpretive approach to

research (Mertens, 2005). The semi-structured format ensured consistency between

interviewers, whilst allowing individual issues to arise and be followed up. Typically

interviews were extensive and in-depth, taking up to an hour to conduct, especially in the

case of HEI tutors and STs. As in the case of questionnaires, semi-structured interviews were

also piloted with small groups who were not then part of the main study.


72

Table 4.4 Data Gathering Schedule in Each HEI / Programme for each of the two Rounds of Fieldwork

Visit 1 (Year 1

only, 2014)

Courtesy visit

Explained the purpose of the study and negotiated access for all the

relevant data gathering including questionnaire surveys

Liaised with the contact person in the HEI, in all cases the Director of

SP

Agreed provisionally procedures with relevant staff, including the

ethical procedures

Visit 2: 2015/16

(HEI setting)

Conducted interviews with HEI tutors

Conducted interviews with student teachers

Administered survey questionnaires to student teachers

Distribution and collection of survey questionnaires (HEI tutors)

Collected programme documents

Visit 2 2015/16

(School setting)

Conducted interviews with co-operating teachers

Conducted interviews with school principals

Conducted school observations visits / de-briefs

Collected any relevant school documents relating to SP

Visit 3 2016/17

(HEI setting)

Conducted interviews with HEI tutors

Conducted interviews with student teachers

Distribution and collection of survey questionnaires to various cohorts

on ITE programmes

Distribution and collection of survey questionnaires (HEI tutors)

Collected programme documents

Visit 4 2016

through end ‘17

(School setting)

Conducted interviews with co-operating teachers

Conducted one-to-one interviews with school principals

Conducted school observations visits / de-briefs

Collected any relevant school documents relating to SP


73

4.6 RESPONSE RATES AND ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE As indicated in Table 4.1, a vast amount of qualitative and quantitative data was collected,

considerably more than initially planned in some respects. In addition to interview and

questionnaire surveys, 7 debriefing sessions were observed by two researchers in each case –

this and other lines of data are not listed in Table 4.2 but see below. There are various

reasons for seeking additional sources of data. In the case of round two fieldwork it proved

extremely difficult to get access to some groups. The team was dependent on their contacts in

the HEIs to gain access to relevant schools for data gathering from CTs and principals and on

occasions when nominations were made and particular schools contacted by the team,

permission was not forthcoming for the conduct of interviews at school level. There is no

doubt that participation in round one fieldwork involved intensive negotiation and work on

our part but more importantly on the part of our link people at the HEI. Participation in

interviews involved a good deal of time on their part. Our contact HEI tutors were somewhat

less accessible for the kind of in-depth, insightful face-to-face fieldwork they had facilitated

in round one and where that was the case we were more dependent on other sources of

information such as the questionnaire surveys which were not as rich in evidence. Some HEI

tutors were also of the view that there were no significant changes, from their point of view,

and weren’t easily persuaded as to the merits of being re-interviewed or surveyed one year

later.

A number of additional measures were taken to better reflect the perspectives of the different

groups and in particular to enhance our evidence from CTs and Principals. One strategy was

to seek interviews with a sample of CTs and Principals/DPs who had participated in a

Teaching Council event about SP. Following permission from the Council to contact this

group, 3 additional interviews were conducted with school staff who did have STs on SP in

their schools but whose students were not necessarily part of those surveyed in our main case

study settings listed in Table 4.2. Secondly, 18 post-primary Principals/DPs who were not

associated with the six sites completed the Principal/DP questionnaire. Thirdly, additional

interviews were conducted with primary Principals and CTs who had students from several

providers including two of our case study programmes. The latter are included in the count in

Table 4.2.

Finally, and very importantly, further school-based evidence beyond the six case study

settings was collected involving visits to schools for interviews with staff. All bar one of the

vignettes of good practice in Chapter 9 are based on this additional line of inquiry which

involved contact with a range of schools and Principals. While these additional data sources

were useful in terms of extending the evidence base, a limitation overall of the study is the

balance of HEI and school data that could be deemed representative nationally, with the latter

not as strong, scale-wise, as the former.

A further point is also necessary about representativeness. As is clear from Table 4.2 Case A

makes up half the population of HEI tutor questionnaires returned, and a third for ST returns,

thus potentially injecting some imbalance in the data. However, it is noteworthy that our case

study settings varied in terms of scale and overall numbers of STs on programmes so some

differences in the obtained numbers are to be expected given the size of different providers in

the study. This highlights the value of employing a variety of data collection procedures. The


74

analysis of qualitative interview data along with the documentary data from SP Handbooks

allowed us to ensure that no one source of data, or indeed no one provider, dominated the

claims made and the conclusions drawn.

We would also suggest that because of the scale, depth and diversity of the data assembled

and analysed, the claims made in subsequent chapters of this Final Report are valid and

trustworthy. The scale of evidence is large and comprehensive and we argue reflects the

variety of approaches to and perspectives on SP found nationally. This design overall allowed

the research team to gather quality data that offers accounts of current practices and accounts

of why practices are as they are and the factors influencing them.

4.7 DATA MANAGEMENT AND ANALYSIS Different methods were used to manage and analyse the data, depending on its format. In the

case of qualitative data, specifically interviews, transcripts were prepared based on what were

normally digital recordings. In a few cases a digital recorder was not used and notes had to be

handmade throughout. Open-ended items on the questionnaires were also transcribed and all

these qualitative data were then annotated by the team to highlight key issues, trends, typical

and atypical responses pertaining to the issues noted in Table 4.1. This is a conventional

approach to content analysis of qualitative data. By its nature it was an iterative and time-

consuming one, made more complex by the fact that there were several sources of data to be

mapped and triangulated.

In the interests of efficiency the use of a computer software package such as NVIVO was

considered but decided against on the grounds that deep familiarity with the data on the part

of each member of the author team could be assured through regular meetings and interim

work throughout the period. The quantitative analysis was a different matter. Here it was

decided that the most efficacious management strategy would be to input all questionnaire

data into SPSS which would allow the conduct of statistical analyses and some relevant

comparative work. Once again a content analysis using key themes and issues pertinent to the

aim and objectives noted in Table 4.1 was conducted.

4.8 BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS

A brief profiling of some of the key groups is appropriate in this chapter. Student teachers

were selected for the questionnaire surveys who were at various stages in their course so as to

capture experiences over entire programmes although there was a preponderance of students

in their final years. ST interviewees were usually in the final years of their course but PME

post-primary students were from both years. The vast majority of STs were female. For

instance in the Round 1 survey, 84% were female. There were also more primary than post

primary students in the surveys and in interviews. Again in the Round 2 survey 63% of

respondents were on primary programmes and 37% on post-primary programmes.

Participating students were engaged in SP in all four provinces of the country. In the case of

post primary STs the entire range of secondary school subjects were represented in their

teaching.


75

In primary schools STs teach a range of classes and also at post-primary level students teach

across the range of the system. 69% of post-primary respondents reported teaching across the

range of junior and senior classes, with two student teachers in one case teaching only

(unusually) at senior cycle.

HEI tutors were more evenly split on gender grounds than their STs, with 48% and 52%

female and male respectively, in the Round 1 survey, and the corresponding statistics for the

Round 2 survey being 61% and 38%. In terms of their years of experience of supervising

STs on placement, just over half (51%) reported having up to 5 years experience while 30%

had between 6 and 10 years experience, the remainder (20%) having in excess of 10 years

experience.

STs are doing their SP in all four provinces of the country as indicated by the HEI tutor

participants reporting that they visit STs all over the country. For instance in the Round 1

survey, 35% reported that their schools were in more than one province; 35% reported to be

currently visiting in Munster; 17% Leinster; 13% Connaught and just 1% Ulster.

Co-Operating Teachers and Principals ranged in experience of having STs on SP. This was

linked to their experience and history of their schools in hosting students. The schools

nominated by HEI programme leaders all had a tradition of taking students from that provider

although CTs interviewed in those settings varied in their experience of supporting STs.

4.9 QUALITY ASSURANCE, ETHICS, DILEMMAS

A number of approaches were used to maximize the quality of the claims/findings from the

study:

Training of fieldworkers to ensure consistency of approach especially in relation to

the administration of semi-structured interview schedules.

Regular team meetings of the core team to discuss emerging themes and issues.

Fortnightly (usually) meetings of the PI and RA within UCC to monitor progress and

plan.

Use of multiple data sources which allowed the cross-checking of evidence.

Careful preparation and piloting of data gathering instruments.

Meetings with the Teaching Council along with the production of interim reports and

presentations showing progress and identifying issues and trends.

The fundamental principle of ethical research is that research is more than a matter of

collecting information: it is also concerned with rights, dignity and the well-being of those

taking part. All participants were assured of anonymity and consent forms were prepared and


76

completed by all informants as is now recommended practice in all social science research

including education research (cf BERA ethical guidelines). However, anonymity and

confidentiality proved to be more significant than anticipated in the study. Ethical clearance,

based on full details of the rationale and research design, had to be obtained from both UCC

and the then St Patrick’s College Ethical Committees, as expected. In the case of UCC this

was a relatively straightforward process. It was a very protracted process in the case of the

then St Patrick’s College. No fieldwork could begin until ethical approval was granted.

Unexpectedly, two HEIs who had agreed to participate in the study withheld full approval

until their own respective ethical boards had seen and approved the proposed research design.

This took time and in one case was denied on the basis of concerns about anonymity. The

research design, in terms of analysis, was clarified and the application submitted once again

for approval. It was granted on this occasion. An issue of concern for the two institutions in

question was the potential for exposure and identification through the reporting of the

evidence. It did not feature as so sensitive an issue for the other institutions. The clarification

was that every effort would be made to ensure identities would not be revealed and one of the

mechanisms for doing this was that there would be no profiling (beyond what appears in this

chapter) of individual programmes.

Extra care was taken in the use of documentary evidence which had been submitted to us

which could be so specific to that particular institution that identity would be compromised.

The sensitivities expressed about confidentiality and anonymity are understandable, arguably,

in the context of the new culture in ITE in Ireland where programmes have to be accredited

by the Teaching Council, the result being that senior colleagues in the sector are more aware

of accountability and competition in the system. Another factor, especially at the outset of the

study, was the fact that some institutions were themselves in the process of developing

various partnerships and mergers with other HEIs and this added a layer of complexity to the

social and political context of this research. In sum extreme vigilance was exercised in the

reporting of evidence to guard against individual or programme identities. In reality this

would be the norm for participants. In reality, too while anonymity protects their privacy, it

also hides their hard work and expertise.


77

CHAPTER 5: GUIDANCE, OBSERVATION, ASSESSMENT, GRADING

AND QUALITY ASSURANCE

5.1 INTRODUCTION

As discussed in the review of literature, assessment, incorporating feedback that is

meaningful to the learner, is vital for the development of the novice regardless of the sphere

of learning in question. In the case of professional learning on SP student teachers need

opportunities to discuss their performance with more established teachers who can focus their

attention on critical dimensions of their practice, negotiate targets with them for their

improvement, and consider with them the impact of their teaching on pupils. They also

benefit from opportunities to discuss their practice and their progress with peers as well as

opportunities to be assessors of their own development as practitioners.

What elements of practice are focussed on in observing and evaluating STs’ teaching and in

offering them feedback? What are the opportunities for student teachers to observe teaching?

What are the sources of feedback for the ST? To what extent do CTs observe and offer

guidance? How does the feedback from the HEI and the school align? What is the balance

between feedback/formative assessment and the more formal summative assessment that

results in a grade? How is quality assured? These and other issues are considered here,

drawing on interview and questionnaire data from HEI tutors, CTs and STs, along with

documentary evidence from SP Handbooks, plus direct evidence from de-briefing sessions

between the HEI tutor and ST. This chapter has the following major themes:

Overview of Time on SP, Number of Lessons Taught and Tutor Visits

Feedback Templates, Rubrics and Criteria

Critical Reflection and Links with Observation

Opportunities to Observe Teachers Teach

Sources of and Variation in Guidance and Feedback

HEI Tutor and CT communication about ST Progress

The Debrief as a Pivotal Vehicle for Integration

Role of the CT in Summative Assessment and Grading

Benefits of Extended Period of Training and Contrasting SP

Quality Assurance: Consistency in the Interpretation of Student Performance

5.2 OVERVIEW OF TIME ON SP, NUMBER OF LESSONS TAUGHT AND TUTOR VISITS This section describes some of the basic aspects of SP as a foundation for an examination of

the more complex elements later in the chapter. Table 5.1 offers an overview of the number

of weeks in total that STs spend on SP during their programme of initial teacher education. It

also indicates the number of lessons they are expected to teach with particular reference to

their extended placement along with the number of visits from their HEI tutors on that


78

extended placement. This evidence was gleaned from Handbooks and interviews with

Directors of SP. It describes the current state of play at each site.

Table 5.1: Time on SP, Number of Lessons and HEI Tutor Visits

Cases/Sites Time in School in each year of

programme

(slight variation in totals due to

observation days, school visits for

planning)

N of lessons

STs are

expected to

teach on

extended SP

N of visits

from HEI

tutors on

extended

SP

Site A (Prim)

Y1 BEd

Y2 BEd

Y3 BEd

Y4 BEd

3 weeks

6 weeks

0 weeks

12 weeks

(+2 weeks assisting in Infants

while planning cross

school/curricular work)

Teach all day

Min. 4

Site B (Prim)

Y1 BEd

Y2 BEd

Y3 BEd

Y4 BEd

6 observation days and 3 weeks SP

2 weeks school experience and 3

weeks SP

6 weeks (2 blocks of 3 weeks)

10 weeks

Teach all day

Min. 4

Site C (Prim)

Y1 BEd

Y2 BEd

Y3 BEd

Y4 BEd

PME Y1

PME2

Additional school visits/assisting,

planning

3 weeks

15 school days

15 school days

10 weeks

6 weeks + 9 days in Sem1

10 weeks + days for visits

Teach all day

Teach all day

Min. 4

Site D (PP)

Y1 BA

Y2 BA

Y3 BA

Y4 BA

3 weeks observation in primary

school+ Jan-March(incl.) 2 hrs per

week pp school

8 weeks (pair/team teaching)

15 classes in main subject+2

classes per week in resource

support setting

11weeks (individual/independent)

Range of

levels

12-15 lessons

pw

Min. 3 and

50% of STs

have 4

visits in Y4

Site E (PP)

Y1 BEd

Y2 BEd

Y3 BEd

Y4 BEd

Y5 BEd

3 weeks, 2 subjs; jn cycle

4 weeks, 2 subjs, jn cycle

4 weeks, 2 subjs, sn focus

4 weeks in non-mainstream e.g.

PLC/FE

10 weeks, 2 subjects, all levels

10 hrs (under

review)

Min 3 but

almost half

get 4 visits

in Y5

Site F (PP)

Y1 PME

Y2 PME

2 days per week all year

3 days per week all year

6 per week

9-10 pw Y2

6 in Y1

4 in Y2,

one with 2

tutors


79

As is clear from Table 5.1 all STs in our sites have an extended placement towards the end of

their programme with varying but shorter periods of SP throughout the programme up to

then.

It does not follow that they are in the same classroom for all the time on their extended SP

although they are in the same school over the block. It is a continuous placement and all

certainly have the opportunity to build working relations with learners and get to know them

as learners which is essential given the Teaching Council Criteria and Guidelines for

Programme Providers as well as the guidelines on SP. There are educational / professional

reasons for not being in the same classroom for the entire extended SP as well as practical

aspects to do with not imposing too much on any one teacher’s class. Here is how one focus

group with HEI primary tutors described their practice:

Interviewer: Can I just clarify, is it broken into two four weeks and two weeks, is it

broken up or is it one continuous 10 week? In a classroom or school?

Interviewee: No, in a school.

Interviewer: Oh in a school, okay so in the same school for 10 weeks in different

classrooms.

Interviewee: Yes, in different settings in the school. We start on a very positive note

in September by allowing the student to spend two weeks with the infant teacher who

has new infants; they’re only in the door so they’re the classroom assistant for two

weeks. It’s a mixture of observation and assistance for discrete teaching, strand work

which is working in a selected area the student will look at and define themselves,

learning support and special educational needs settings so, you know, it’s a diverse

enough placement.

While most of our case study sites operate an extended placement whereby STs are in the

same school for its duration, site F’s post-primary PME is different in that its structure

requires students to be in the same school throughout the year for three days per week in the

second year (and two days per week in the first year) while the remaining two days of the

second year are spent on HEI-based work. The Director of SP explained how this approach is

very effective for student teachers:

They get the rhythm of the school year in both years so they might not be in school

every day but being in school three days a week for the whole year is a very

substantial block of time that they spend in schools and they get the experience at the

start of the year, midterms, Christmas assessments, the various events that take place

during the year.

The point is made by this interviewee that some schools do not like this model but that it

works because it makes visible that STs are learners, needing a co-operating teacher, and as

such should not have full responsibility for the class:

We get mixed reviews about the students being in the school from induction at the

beginning of the school throughout various events. We do get some criticism, some

don't like our model because they're not there the following week; certain teachers

will be covering them some days of the week and other teachers will be covering

them other days… We see them as student teachers not as classroom teachers, so they


80

should not have sole responsibility for the classes under their charge. So by having

them out only certain days of the week requires them to have a co-operating teacher

working alongside them to support them as well.

Our evidence from Handbooks and interviews shows that, over the period of their

programme, students in both primary and post-primary have the opportunity to teach at all

levels, from infants to upper primary in the case of primary STs, and from junior through

senior classes in the case of post-primary students. This is not new in the case of primary

students who traditionally would have had this opportunity even before the new TC

arrangements were introduced. It is new and more challenging, however, for post-primary

students. Our three post-primary cases have incorporated this requirement into their

provision. Case E did not have major difficulty accommodating this, partly to do with the

specialist subject area in question. Cases D and F found this more demanding to

accommodate but secured access by encouraging schools and students to participate in

different contexts: team teaching, classroom assistance, observation, teaching of small

number of specific lessons/units of work. The director of SP in F described a good sequence

of development over the two years building up the number of lessons and developing

capacity to cope with the demand of working with exam classes. This same programme also

requires students to engage in some of the activities outlined in the Teaching Council

guidance and they have added several other examples themselves to ensure that students are

well involved in the life of the school. By the end of the two-year programme the expectation

is that the students ‘would have had a chance to experience both junior cycle and senior cycle

examination classes’.

5.2.1 SOME CHANGES IN RESPONSE TO PRESSURES FROM SCHOOLS There were some changes over the period of the project to the timing, time, and balance of

time on SP within the programme overall. For example, Site A changed the timing of its

original Year 3 placement to the beginning of Year 4 and also incorporated some revision in

relation to the cross-curricular/cross-school elements within the extended SP in Year 4 of the

programme. Similarly Site E is currently reviewing the demands of the final year SP in

relation to the two different subjects with reference to junior and senior cycle. These changes

have arisen for HEIs from such aspects as concern on the part of schools about releasing

classes for sustained, extended periods and partially from pressures to meet all the

requirements such as having the opportunity to do some teaching at senior cycle in the case

of post-primary programmes. HEIs are thus seeking to balance the twin imperatives of

meeting the Teaching Council requirements on the one hand and minimizing the challenges

to schools of having a ST on the other. As we demonstrate later, HEIs are keenly aware of the

challenges of securing sufficient school placements for their STs and as a result seek to

minimize disruption to the routines of the school in which their students are hosted. What

features in 5.1 is our best evidence of the current situation at each site.

What has not changed is the scale of visits from HEI tutors and the fact that all students are

observed teaching by two different HEI tutors in their final, extended SP. According to our

questionnaire surveys a typical student receives between 3 and 4 visits on the 10-week block

or continuous placement but there is some variation in this. Even within the same programme

tutors and students reported different numbers and this can be explained with reference to

how they interpret ‘typical’, ‘block’ and ‘continuous’. A more reliable statistic on this came


81

from the interview data especially with Directors of SP: the majority of students receive a

minimum of 4 visits over the period of their extended, final SP, whether on primary or post

primary programmes and all students are observed a minimum of 3 times. This has remained

constant over the project. Students who are struggling get additional visits and the

moderation process (see below) means that samples of students on all programmes have

additional visits beyond the regular ones. All students have a visit from at least two different

tutors on their final SP.

Individual HEI tutors have between 8 and 10 students so over a 10-week block this would

involve between 32 and 40 visits to schools before counting any moderation visits.

5.2.2 TEACHING BEYOND THE CT CLASSES, SUBJECT EXPERTISE AND PAYMENT Table 5.2 shows how some 64% of ST questionnaire respondents in the Round 2 survey are

timetabled to teach classes that are separate from the classes of their CT but of note is that the

majority of this group are primary students. Initially this was surprising to us but the

difference between sectors, which is statistically significant, is explained with reference to

the fact that primary students on their extended placement are scheduled to contribute to

teaching across various activities in the school as well as being responsible for extended

teaching in their own classroom. For example, in one primary programme the students

engage in a creative arts or SEN or sports project or Maths/Science initiative for a number of

weeks during which they work across classes or groups in the school. Similar initiatives

occur in the other two primary programmes in the study.

Post-primary students are not involved in teaching outside of their subject areas and HEI

tutors are very strong in advising against teaching subjects that are outside their degree

subjects. Some PME student teachers, however, who only have one main teaching subject

teach SPHE and/or CSPE for one or two periods per week.

A small minority of ST are paid for teaching or doing other work in the school. The sectoral

difference here is statistically significant with a quarter of post-primary STs reporting that

they are paid for teaching or doing other work in their school. Primary students, while on SP,

do not get paid and tend to be precluded from taking up positions of substitute teacher. Their

HEIs are strongly opposed to this until into June when their academic year is over.

Interviews with HEI tutors confirm that there is a tendency for post-primary students to

receive payment for some teaching in their placement school as suggested in this extract from

a focus group interview with tutors:

Interviewee 2: Some of mine are definitely getting paid.

Interviewee 6: I’m sure there is a way to pay them.

Interviewee 2: But I’m not saying that they‘re all getting paid.

Interviewer: Would you say more second years than first years?

Interviewee 2: A lot of mine. I couldn’t say … I’ve seventeen, I know maybe eight or

nine or ten of them would have mentioned, you know, that they had extra classes, but

I never asked.

Interviewer: That’s first years?

Interviewee 2: Well mine are all second years.


82

Interviewee 3: First years are doing it too. Some of them are past pupils of the school,

they’d be well known, well established, so … I think that might be the link for them,

but I think if there were hours that could be used.

It is likely that recent difficulties encountered by Principals in securing substitute teachers,

especially in some subjects, will mean that student teachers are in increasing demand as

unqualified substitute teachers. One Director of SP explained how some of their PME

students are registered with the Teaching Council on the FE route and hence are eligible to be

paid the unqualified rate. However, it seems there can be some tensions around adhering to

the HEI requirements and accepting paid work in schools:

If they are consistently absent (from lectures) because they are working we have

difficult conversations with them and we will certainly have a conversation with the

school about that. As much as we are trying to build a partnership with the school we

feel it's unfair to the students. I have many difficult conversations here. You are so

beholden to the school but so many of the credits are for the university-based part of

the course - 35 credits go to the university based components so they need to be in the

University to have the required number of hours to get the required number of credits

within their modules so we can't reduce the university-based component any further.

In another focus group of HEI post-primary tutors, confirming evidence from students

themselves, the point was made that in some schools STs were timetabled in their subjects

outside of their allocated quota of CT classes but do not get paid. In these cases tutors

encouraged their students to tell them about such arrangements and any pressure from

schools to teach extra hours. HEI tutors were not averse to granting extensions for

assignments in such cases but were very aware of the difficulties:

We encourage them to tell us, we try to support them, give extensions, there are

pressures from schools and from students too who want to oblige. For example, the

Spanish teacher is sick and they have a year 2 PME in the school anyway; two years

ago they would have been fully qualified anyway, school acting in interest of pupils,

student teacher feels under pressure, sees an opportunity, we are caught in the middle

and see both sides.

Tutors also expressed the view that Principals justify this to them on the basis of such

arguments as getting ‘a dose of reality’ and the opportunity to ‘test out’ the ST in the context

of a potential job offer. Students themselves share the view of the latter and are mindful of

obtaining a good reference. Tutors also note how students should be paid the unqualified rate

for any teaching they do outside of their PME allocated hours but refrain from criticising

students (or schools) in this regard as so many students work in other situations (restaurants

and pubs) to support themselves financially and how there are, at least good professional

learning opportunities available by doing substitute work in schools.


83

Table 5.2 Timetabled outside of Classes of CT and Payment

(discrepancies due to rounding)

Yes No Don’t

know

% % % N

I am timetabled to teach classes separate from the

classes of my CT

Primary 73 25 2 248

PostPrim 48 49 3 148

Total 64 34 2 396

I am paid for teaching/other school work

Primary 4 95 1 247

PostPrim 25 75 0 146

Total 12 87 1 393

5.2.3 ANNOUNCED OR UNANNOUNCED VISITS In all but one of our cases, STs do not know when a HEI tutor may call to observe them

teach. Typically, students do not know when their HEI tutor may visit and the tutor, knowing

the students’ teaching timetable, arrives in the school some time before a lesson, observes the

lesson, reads the file and follows up with a detailed debrief.

In one programme (Case study D) however, and indeed for all programmes in this particular

HEI, students are told in advance. This is how the lead tutor in that case study setting

described and justified the format of a visit to a student teacher on SP:

Our students go to different schools all over the country. They might have several

CTs. On visiting schools we ask the Principal to introduce us to the CTs and that’s

why we text the day before so we can meet the Principal and have every chance to

meet the co-operating teachers. A cross-over visit is built into one of the three visits.

We have very few tutors going into school – at most we might only have 2 tutors

going into a specific school so when I get there I would spend all day in that school

and see all the students or as many as I can and also see CTs.

Within one of the primary case studies, the practice of unannounced visits is traditionally the

norm and the HEI tutors in the focus group were unanimous that it should remain so.

Representing the views of the group, one observed that STs should be intrinsically motivated

to maintain high standards saying:

[Unannounced visits] is much better, because in the real world you don’t do a job like

teaching because somebody ‘up there’ is watching you - you do it because you want

to do it in a certain way, and it is not that they want to be watching you for the rest of

your career - it’s up to you to want to do it.


84

STs, though, are of the view that it would make the SP less stressful for them if they knew

when exactly to expect a visit from their tutors. As one student put it: ‘not knowing when a

tutor is arriving adds stress particularly when other colleges and student teachers are aware at

least during which week they can expect to be inspected’. We report further on this issue in a

section more specifically devoted to the student experience on SP (Chapter 7).

In one case (F) where the visits occur about every two months the very first visit is

announced in advance but all others are unannounced. This is justified in order to link with

the co-operating at the outset: ‘We want the tutor to build a relationship with the co-operating

teachers. We ask the student to make the cooperating teacher aware of the time and date of

the visit so they can build that relationship’.

5.3 FEEDBACK TEMPLATES, RUBRICS AND CRITERIA HEI tutors use templates listing all the features that are important to being an effective

teacher. These are detailed in Student Handbooks and while the wording and level of detail

varies somewhat across handbooks for different stages of the ST’s training and on different

programmes, all converge in attending to the elements listed below. These are the aspects that

form the basis of feedback in discussions with STs about performance:

what the pupils are learning and how they are learning it;

working relationships with learners;

actual evidence of children’s learning and ST ability to comment on this;

the ST’s presence;

planning (short and long term) including cohesion and progression in plans, lesson

notes, file;

suitability of objectives, learning outcomes;

differentiation and inclusion and extent to which STs facilitate the participation of all

learners;

organisational issues;

classroom management and safety;

formative assessment of pupils;

communication skills;

subject knowledge;

confidence;

STs’ own written evaluations of their lessons; and,

responses to earlier tutor feedback.

Without exception, the above items featured in all the descriptions in Student Handbooks and

featured too in guidance given to CTs/schools. For instance, on one programme the following

were listed as areas of assessment focus in guidance sent to schools:

Planning and Preparation

Subject Knowledge

Teaching Approaches and Methods

Assessment, Recording and Reporting

Classroom Management


85

Reflection and Evaluation

Ethics, Professional Orientation

Health and Safety

Each item was further broken down and described. For instance, assessment and recording

included: regular monitoring, recording and reporting on student learning; use of a diverse

range of assessment methods to allow learners demonstrate their knowledge and

understanding, including observation, class questioning and marking of student work; and the

provision of regular and constructive feedback on learner’s work including homework.

5.3.1 FEEDBACK AGAINST CRITERIA

One HEI tutor whose response was typical across HEI tutors, regardless of programme,

noted:

For me it’s generally against the criteria, there’s a reason for those criteria and it’s

linked to their practice, I structure my feedback against those criteria always – adding

up to professionalism (described) in the Handbook. I try to sum up in the end some

key things they need to work on over next few weeks and that helps them to prioritise.

It’s vital that they understand the written feedback you give them (PP tutor).

HEI tutors say they are flexible as to how to give feedback once it is linked to the key

elements in the template. As one Director of SP observed: ‘You can take the template and

adhere to it strictly or adjust it – it’s up to the tutors; tutors need to meet students beforehand

–weeks beforehand - to ensure they know the criteria, I give them my notes after the lesson

that I have observed’. While the list above is applied to all observations conducted by HEI

tutors, the expectation is that as students progress through their programme, year on year, and

progress over the period of say the 10-week block practice they show progression in how

they teach. For instance:

By 4th

year, you are looking for more sophisticated practice – if say in a challenging

school/setting can they accommodate all the diversity of learners, and in those very

challenging contexts they may require further support but they have to show they can

include all learners. (Primary tutor)

The comments of another relatively new, part-time HEI tutor who is a retired primary

principal are interesting in that, she herself believes that while she adheres strictly to the list

above, she may be slightly different in her style to what she perceives as typical of the

lecturer/HEI tutor. She is skills-based in her approach:

You have a short window with them, I share tricks of the trade with them. I wouldn’t

be as academic maybe in my approach. Lecturers will give them ideas, but I will give

them attention grabbers, ways of repeating without repeating...I will be thinking as a

principal who interviewed teachers down the years for 40 years. I always say you are

starting a journey... you don’t have to re invent the wheel...’

This tutor goes on to emphasise a learner-centred perspective as she defines it:

When I go in I have the methodologies in my head, key methodologies of the

curriculum, I’m looking for active learning, collaborative work, presentation skills,

behaviour/classroom management, overall, I get the sense of what they are about,

what is positive about them...if they are a natural... then tease out ... how far down the


86

road to being a competent teacher is this person... I form an overall impression, voice

projection, presence etc. I’m encouraging them to get themselves off the stage of

direct teaching early on.

This tutor adds how STs ‘need to have something to work towards that is reasonable’.

All tutors are conscious of obtaining a balance between affirmation and judgment, and of

pacing their STs’ learning insofar as they hold out the expectation to their students that they

should consciously work on the targets set for them on the basis of the oral and written

feedback:

I tend to identify some key things that they need to prioritise, it could be around the

use of open-ended questions, or getting their pupils to engage in peer or self

assessment for instance but I would also feedback on all the usual aspects like

classroom management and use of resources….I would want to ensure that the student

is very clear on what they have to do to improve. (HEI pp tutor).

HEI tutors give feedback based on the observation of complete lessons as reported in one

post-primary focus group: ‘we observe all of the lesson; the student has to have the

opportunity to show that they can conduct a complete lesson’.

5.4 CRITICAL REFLECTION AND LINKS WITH OBSERVATION As highlighted in the literature review in an earlier chapter to this report critical reflection is

part of developing one’s competence as a teacher and professional. This stance is strongly

endorsed in the Teaching Council’s ITE Criteria and Guidelines (2011) through the

expectation that research and evidence should be visible in STs’ professional portfolios. A

key element of the extended programmes is that it should facilitate ‘an increased emphasis on

portfolio work, reflective practice and research/inquiry-based learning (Teaching Council,

2011, 17) and STs are expected to have opportunities to learn to ‘engage in data gathering’

and learn ‘to critically analyse and evaluate relevant knowledge and research’ (25) . The SP is

expected to provide opportunities to ‘integrate theory and practice’ as well as opportunities

‘to reflect critically on their practice’ (13). The Teaching Council expects STs to ‘conduct

and apply relevant research’ (25).

The notion of reflective practice and a general research/inquiry stance permeates the

discourse of all HEI tutors interviewed and is undoubtedly a fundamental feature of ITE in

Ireland. It is evident in all the programme handbooks, in the planning and evaluation files of

students, and in the feedback and assessment given to students about their practice. It begins

early in the ST’s life on the programme with a strong initial emphasis on students discussing

their own learning processes, their histories as learners and their past experiences of

schooling, leading them to reflect on and understand the kind of teacher they wish to become.

The emphasis on reflection progresses over time to incorporate exploration of their own

practice on SP in the context of set readings, specified themes (e.g. inclusion), policy

statements (e.g. syllabus in a particular subject area), lectures on what constitutes best

practice in an area (e.g. teaching poetry) and especially in the context of their ongoing

individual experience of being on SP. Throughout it is clear that the notion of reflection that

is promoted is one that is not about being critical in a negative sense of practice they may

observe in school but rather of trying to understand what shapes practice, what can be


87

changed and enhanced, and what the assumptions are underlying their own and others’

practices. Thus, the overall thrust of reflection, as students develop over their programme, is

towards making beliefs and attitudes visible since beliefs and attitudes are part of the

assumptions underlying practice and as such influence practice and provide an identity as a

teacher and crucially also shape expectations in turn for their own learners and their

identities.

According to reports from HEI tutors, STs find reflection very challenging (and this is

confirmed by the evidence from students themselves (see chapter 7 for further evidence).

Students are often reluctant to move beyond the task-oriented practicality of planning lessons,

making and organising resources, organising activities to evaluation and critical engagement

especially when the latter is expected to be written up and incorporated into planning files for

tutors to read. For some students this is seen as ‘extra work’ on top of an already busy

schedule, thus it is not viewed as something that is part and parcel of teaching.

The following quotes demonstrate the value HEI tutors place on reflection, their approach to

its promotion, and how students find reflection a challenge:

Reflection is so important – fundamental questions like – what is good teaching?

What is a good teacher? How can I be more inclusive? What is important in the

relationship between me and my students? Why am I leaving that child out? Am I

giving more attention to boys rather than girls? These are all questions that help us

grow…(PrimHEI tutor)

Some feel you are adding to their very heavy workload and they do find all the

reflection hard to grasp but for us it is integrated into the entire programme and runs

across everything. (pp HEI tutors)

For STs it is the biggest challenge – it is so vital; you cannot progress as a teacher

unless you think about what you did / why, what went well – look back on it. (Prim

tutor)

Critical reflection is something that underpins everything we do – enabling students to

be critical. At our professional development sessions we talk about criticality,

reflection, feedback. In feedback or debriefing session (following the observation of a

lesson) it is all about reflection but they are sometimes so grading focused (Prim

tutor).

Interviewees talked about how they support STs to be reflective and how they seek to

overcome the difficulties students experience in relation to reflection and self evaluation of

their practice on SP:

It is difficult because they are reflecting after the event, they feel they are doing these

reflective exercises for us rather than for their own developing competence. If we

could facilitate reflection in real time, stop – why did you do that now, why these

resources? That whole dynamic that makes it problematic when you can do it in real

time. There is good potential in video material and we use that a lot, OK it’s not in

real time, not immediate reflection but it helps interrogate practice more. The same

for micro teaching which is great because you can stop it; why did you do that …


88

what else could you do, have you seen somebody else do… proper reflective

discussion that might be more practical in the end. (PP tutor)

Students keep a reflective journal / portfolio – we start the notion of reflection in first

year – this is guided and supported a lot around their own past experiences and they

gradually move into more a critical phase. We give lots of support towards critical

reflection in the third and fourth years. We do at least four hours of specific reflective

practice with a specialist here in the college – it is difficult, students find it difficult,

we find it difficult too as it is in the past. (primary tutor)

We look at their written reflections and give feedback – we notice whether they are

describing or also being critically reflective. We take students through a structure, the

content of their professional portfolios will vary according to different years of

programme, there is always a strong link between experience and theory, how they

develop as professional throughout the journey. In the final year they can use video

diaries into their portfolios, so it’s not just all written reflections as that doesn’t suit

everybody, it can be blogs, multimedia and it is part of assessment. We interview all

of our students, 25% of grade, strong emphasis on critical reflection of personal and

professional journey, interviewed by SP tutors. (Primary tutor)

Reflection is promoted by the HEI tutor in a way that supports the integration of theory and

practice and is designed to provide students with the professional discourse necessary to talk

about and analyse practice. In this respect the role of observation itself is a vehicle for this as

the following extended quotation indicates:

We have a placement where they go out and observe, they don’t teach, it’s just

observational training based and they come back and do reflections with the tutors in

tutorials. Instead of saying we do critical reflection I said we’ll do some critical

imagination so imagine the type of teacher you want to be and critically write about

what you’re learning about in educational psychology and the sociology of education.

Use the language, use the terminology to describe the type of teacher you want to be

and that as a stepping stone to then move into the reflection side of it which is I’m out

teaching…How am I doing things. It gives them a sense of technical language,

educational language, not colloquial language, they’ll hear the colloquial language

from the classroom teachers and from us as tutors, we talk about the tips and the tricks

but then they also go back to social constructivism, Piaget, Bruner, Bloom’s

taxonomy of learning because they’ve got a little bit of that in the first semester.

Observation of teachers teaching along with college-based tutorials where practice is

discussed and shared as well as debriefing sessions all combine to provide feedback on what

constitutes effective and professional practice. Tutors are aware of the challenges to STs of

critical reflection and seek to make is progressive over the period of their programme:

Yes. Just take it at a very basic level. And then when we move on to the next

practice we begin to look at – okay, let’s compare what happened in first year with

what’s happening now. You know? And it grows with time. Because it’s not

something that they’re good at as 18 year olds. You know, they look at it as a very

factual thing, this is exactly what happened. So it’s trying to get them to come to the

stage where they can analyse what has happened and look at it critically without being

negative.


89

The HEI tutor is the primary source of guidance on being critically reflective and becoming a

reflective practitioner. Co-operating teachers tend to see critical reflection in the context of

discussions about aspects of lessons that went well and not so well and were generally

reluctant to claim that they supported students in evaluation and reflection. As one primary

CT said: ‘It doesn’t really happen with the STs and me, I would not sit down and do that

(critical reflection) with them it would be fairly superficial’.

Tutors are conscious of the need for CTs to have training in how best to support students in

this respect. One post primary Director of SP perceived that that aspect of the CT role ‘has

not advanced in the last 3 years’ saying how ‘it’s very patchy’ and not viewed by CTs are

part of their role.

5.5 OPPORTUNITIES TO OBSERVE TEACHERS TEACH The opportunity to observe teaching is given strong emphasis in the new TC policy and has

for some time been recognised in ITE as an important dimension of professional learning

although the observation of teachers teaching was not always a feasible aspect of practice for

various reasons, especially at post-primary level.

The majority of students surveyed and interviewed reported that they had some opportunity

to observe teachers teach and the vast majority believe it is a good idea for student teachers to

have a period of observation of teaching (see Table 5.3). Our evidence shows that 87% and

66% respectively of primary and post primary teachers observed a co-operating teacher teach

in the first student survey we conducted, resulting in three-quarters of all students reporting

this opportunity. The overall percentage increased by the round two survey to 91%,

suggesting greater acceptance and importance being attributed to it on the part of schools and

also a greater willingness on the part of CTs to engage in the process. On all elements of

observation listed in Table 5.3 primary student teachers had more opportunity to observe (and

be observed, see above) and were also more positive in their views about its merits. Of note is

that 10% of post-primary questionnaire respondents disagree with the statement that it is a

good idea. As already noted the vast majority of students said they received guidance on the

observation of teaching.

Table 5.3: STs Observing Classroom Teaching

Primary Students R1(R2)

PP Students R1(R2)

Total R1(R2)

% of STs reporting that they observed their CT teacher

87 (99) 66 (79) 75 (91)

% of STs reporting that it is a good idea to have a period of observation of teaching on SP

100 (99) 85 (89) 92 (95)

% of STs reporting that they received guidance on how to observe

88 (89) 77 (94) 83 (90)

% of STs who believe it is a good idea to team-teach with CT

72 (79) 43 (47) 57 (67)

% of STs who had the opportunity to team-teach with another person i.e. CT or ST

66 (71) 53 (37) 59 (58)

N=235 (R1) N=394 (R2)


90

A further dimension allowing observation is the opportunity to team-teach with a CT. 72% of

primary STs believe it is a good idea to team-teach with their CT but the corresponding

figure for post-primary students is 43% with over one-third of post primary students teachers

disagreeing that it is a good idea to team-teach with their CT. A related question in our

questionnaire survey asked respondents to say whether or not they had the opportunity to

team-teach with ‘another person’ i.e. CT or ST. Overall the majority had such an opportunity

with two-thirds of primary students and 53% of post-primary students saying they had this

opportunity in the round one survey. Noteworthy is that the latter statistic reduced to 37% in

the round two survey suggesting this is not a strong feature of post-primary practice.

STs, regardless of type of programme, appear to have at least 12 to 15 hours of observation of

teaching. The vast majority of post-primary principals (95%, n=18) indicated that student

teachers should have the opportunity to observe teachers teach, claiming that their teachers

were willing to support student teachers in this way and on SP in general.

According to our HEI tutor interviews, observation now features much more strongly that it

did on previous programmes although it was always encouraged especially on primary

programmes:

In BEd1 they would observe for one day at beginning of 3 week SP; BEd 2s don’t

have formal observation days but they do have preliminary visits where they do

observe. All students have 2 days of preliminary visits before SP. In the new

programme they have a lot more observation than before.

HEI tutors see observation of teaching as vital for professional learning and they promote it

enthusiastically, even if they feel they cannot always mandate it because of school

circumstances. Tutors typically referred to the importance of focussed observation where

students are given guided tasks to support their observation so that their attention is drawn to

such aspects as pupil/peer interaction, questioning, and resources used in lessons. In addition,

observation can take place while student teachers help with a small group of pupils or an

individual pupil. Here is how one HEI tutor expressed the approach on her concurrent, post-

primary programme:

We encourage it in all years from year one when they visit primary schools, also year

2; they go back to same school in year 3; and in year 4 we encourage it as well. We

have an element in relation to further contributions where they often participate by

helping with tasks.

Tutors were very conscious of good practice in observation and were keen to ensure students

observed a code of ethics and behaved professionally when commenting on their

observations. A further element of good practice in this regard is how some tutors sought to

link observation, critical reflection and research as revealed in the following interview

transcript referring to practice on a primary PME programme:

We have informal and formal observation. We encourage students to engage in reflection

at all times – we imbue an observing capacity at all times. There is a little bit of tactical

negotiation that you have to do in schools – you don’t want students to criticise teachers

in schools, to be critically evaluating teachers there and then, they have to exercise care


91

around that. We don’t operate a dump and run policy – they don’t arrive and take over

class - it is very scaffolded, very much based on gradual release of responsibility.

Tutors are aware of the possibility of students observing poor practice and rather than

criticise teachers during discussion in College, the emphasis is on trying to understand

practice and what happens in schools while becoming knowledgeable about what constitutes

effective or ‘best’ practice. HEI tutors are very aware of the sensitivity and ethics

surrounding students’ experience of poor practice: ‘we know that they’re observing poor

practice sometimes and what’s good is that they recognise this but it requires sensitivity’.

Interviews with student teachers allowed us probe in more detail than in the questionnaire

what their experiences and views are in relation to observation. In interview, students

themselves expressed mixed views about observation with about half of those interviewed

saying they would value yet more opportunities for observation. As one first year PP PME

student put it, ‘I would have liked to observe my class teacher a lot more to learn from their

teaching methods and management style’.

Indicative of the findings in Table 5.3 not all students valued observation sufficiently and it

may be that some teachers and principals under-estimate the potential of observation for

student teacher learning. The following two quotes from final year post-primary students on

a concurrent programme are telling, even though they reflect a minority view:

We were observing teaching for 2 weeks at start of the SP but my Principal said it was

better to start teaching straight away.

We had the option to observe and I chose not to…We were there for a few days at

school meetings so we knew things. I had done it (observation) before in year 2. So

nothing had changed in two years so it was easy to fit in. It would be a waste of time

as I observed those teachers before when I was there. I observed all the different

teachers in all the different disciplines which was great, to see all the different

subjects and how they were taught…. All students were aware I was at the back of the

room and a student and I didn’t feel it was worth it. I’d learn more by teaching

myself. It was in the guidelines but you could do it if you wanted. We had to get

permission from College to not observe.

From the point of view of co-operating teachers, it would appear that requirements for

observation were unclear for schools, due in part, to the variation in requirements from

different HEIs

We don’t get information from all the HEIs...I am going by what the student tells me.

It might be nice to have some kind of formalisation of that. One student might say that

I have to be there for the whole year whereas another student [from a different HEI]

might come in and say I don’t need to observe for the first few weeks, depending on

their subject.

In primary programmes, our evidence suggests that observation of teaching would appear to

also occur in the course of the student’s own teaching practice insofar as the CT typically

teaches some classes and the student observes and makes notes. Thus, this aspect of

observation is more informal, opportunistic and ad hoc whereas the more formal specified


92

type of observation occurs at pre-set periods and usually involves some note-taking and

written commentary that is part of the student’s teaching file and as such woven into

reflection. It is clear that students appreciate the learning that accrues from observation but a

significant minority of STs appear to place low value to it. Where observation was focussed,

task-oriented and linked to activities set by the HEI, then its learning potential was

maximized and better appreciated.

5.6 NATURE AND SOURCES OF GUIDANCE AND VARIATION OF FEEDBACK: HEI TUTORS

AND CTS Students receive Handbooks detailing the requirements about SP. The vast majority (88%) of

the 395 students surveyed in round two acknowledged this but intriguingly some 5% didn’t

know if they had received a Handbook or not! Table 5.3 lists some key elements about SP

and whether or not STs had received guidance pertaining to them. The vast majority of

students reported receiving guidance on how many lessons they should teach, on taking

responsibility for the whole class, on the observation of teaching, and on the assessment of

learners. The last three items in this table – dealing with parents, participating in staff

meetings, and cross curricular activities such as sport- appear not to get the same attention

with only a minority of students in each case reporting that they got guidance on them. These

same three areas pertain to the broader aspects of school life, beyond the immediacy of the

classroom, and also reflect the more recent emphasis in the new arrangements on SP that

recommend that STs experience the wider dimension of the school community.

Table 5.4 Incidence of Guidance Received on Key Elements as Reported by Student Teachers

Guidance on: Yes No Don’t

know

% % % N

The number of lessons I should teach 91 6 3 395

Taking responsibility for teaching the class independently 87 9 4 394

Observation of teaching 91 7 3 394

Assessment of learners 87 9 3 394

Dealing with parents 20 76 5 392

Participation in staff meetings 16 82 3 391

Involvement in extra-curricular activities like sport 39 57 4 392

All students are visited on SP and given detailed written and oral feedback on their progress

from their HEI tutors. They also receive feedback from their CTs but understandably the

nature of this feedback varies considerably with some STs getting a good deal of help from

their CT while others may get very little.

5.6.1 VARIATION BETWEEN HEI TUTOR AND CT FEEDBACK: STUDENT PERSPECTIVES The variation in ST experience in relation to their CT is a theme that featured in our diverse

data banks. The main reason for the difference between the nature of the feedback given by


93

the HEI tutor and the CT was articulated well by one ST interviewee and resonated with the

thrust of our evidence overall: ‘the HEI tutor focuses more on us and our learning whereas

the CT focuses more on the learners in the class. College attends to me as a learner teacher

and my impact on the students and their learning’. We highlight this point because it seems to

be an explanatory factor in understanding the roles and responsibilities of the CT and HEI

tutor.

Entirely in line with the international literature on the relative roles of HEI tutors and

mentors/CTs, STs report that the HEI tutors are more attuned to the student teachers'

concerns in supporting the process of professional development whilst the CT deals with

more immediate practical aspects such as classroom routines, particular children and their

special needs, specific curriculum areas to be covered by a certain period - as noted by a

PME2 student the practical elements of SP when we are teaching and these are also helpful’.

CTs rarely give written feedback (see further detail on CT below).

Student teachers received detailed written feedback from their HEI tutors about which they

feel highly positive. The general finding is that HEI tutors ‘comment on everything’ and ‘go

into detail on every aspect’. As one post-primary ST focus group agreed: ‘my tutor reads

every single word in the file, nothing escapes her’. The following quote, along with reflecting

the experience of very many STs, exemplifies good practice on the part of the HEI support

system:

My HEI tutor is much more in-depth-than my CT, she dissects everything and

feedback is fantastic. She looks at my lesson plan and asks did I meet all the criteria…

And she identifies things I should do to build up my skills in the next lesson so I can

turn out really good lessons where the children are engaged. My CT is more looking

at what I was just doing, whereas my HEI tutor is constantly dissecting my learning.

My CT only comments on classroom management and didn’t talk at all about the

content I was teaching but my HEI tutor was talking a lot and commenting a lot on

my content and how I was doing it. I got great advice.

And another student noted:

Feedback from my CT is less formal like ‘that is really good’, whereas the HEI tutor

is much more specific; they deal with subject content, concrete examples. What was

really good in minute detail and what you need to do to improve. The HEI tutor sees

you as a learner. . .

And other STs observed:

You get brilliant feedback from your HEI tutor whereas it’s more informal from the

CT and it is more casual and maybe not so specific. . . . Feedback is about what you

did, its impact and how it could be different. I don’t get written feedback from my

CT.

The focus is on everything with my (HEI) tutor; 7 areas every single thing is

commented on in one lesson. My tutor feedback is very detailed and precise; all

followed up by an email detailing same. The feedback is really great. I have it then

later in an email to reflect on it when I’m really able to digest it. She takes notes the

whole way through and she sends that on later under headings. Things you can do to

improve. Exactly what you need to help you improve.


94

Although the HEI tutor is involved in their summative assessment, it is clear from the above

and our data, in general, that this is not an inspection-type enterprise, it is primarily about

enabling the ST gain confidence and competence as a professional. One account from a HEI

tutor, about trust, is interesting in this respect as it describes how one particular student in her

group some years ago sought to maximise his learning opportunities in the tutor visits and

tutorials. While the actions of the student are not at all typical of students we interviewed, the

account certainly highlights the potential in the HEI tutor-student teacher relationship for

learning and growth and how tutors seek to build trust with STs so they are willing to discuss

weaknesses and strengths:

Now what I find is that if you can get them to trust you and when you get them to

trust you they’ll begin to talk and you ask them, maybe you have different ways of

approaching it but you would say to them sometimes maybe is there something that

happened in the last few days, you know, that you wish you hadn’t seen. And if you

establish a sufficient relationship with them they’ll begin to tell you this. And I base

it on an experience I had five or six years ago with a guy who had been a barber for

16 years and had come fairly late to it. And he had three children and he had to wait a

while after he did the Leaving Cert before his wife could work fulltime to allow him

to study so he was into this forties. And he had a diary and every day when I went in

he had a whole load of stuff written down about things that he was worried about,

things that had gone wrong on him, all of this sort of thing. He had no inhibition

whatsoever about, he just wanted to extract all that he could from me about how so

that he could do the things. And I thought if they could all be like that and if you can

get some little bit down that road with them.

And another HEI tutor similarly emphasized the formative aspect of observing students and

giving them feedback not only on SP but in tutorials in College:

I felt I tried really, really hard this year to kind of try and create a more collegial kind

of relationship rather than the inspector–student relationship, because I felt that the

first years (PME), that you needed them to be more open with you and, so that they

would engage more and be more frank about things that were happening and that.

Now, I don’t know, I’ve certainly been working hard at trying to be less of a formal,

you know, more of a critical friend type of thing than a kind of inspector. I don’t

know to what extent it’s worked or not, you know. I certainly find it lovely, I like the

tutorials, because you’re with a different group than your own and I find that’s a kind

of, it’s a different relationship, because I think they maybe feel freer speaking to you

about things than your own students. I don’t know.

We demonstrate further below the nature of feedback given by the HEI tutor by describing

debriefing sessions we witnessed which followed observed lessons. For now we note how the

quotations and claims noted here derive from a considerable amount of qualitative evidence

which incorporated focus group and individual interviews with large numbers of HEI tutors

and students over the period of the study. This evidence is representative of our data sets and

therefore can be thought of as typical practice.


95

5.6.2. FEEDBACK FROM A RANGE OF SOURCES INCLUDING THE CT The quantitative evidence in Tables 5.4 and 5.5 extends the evidence base from the

qualitative dimension, confirming the importance of feedback from a variety of sources.

Overall, STs talk to and get guidance from a range of people about their SP, from their HEI

tutor and CT through to peers and other teachers in their placement school. The Tables show

how the HEI tutor is the primary source of feedback to the student teacher although it is

noteworthy that the role of the CT is especially important in relation to guidance on planning

and the vast majority of STs reported having conversations with their CTs about their

progress. A minority of STs reported being observed and getting feedback from School

Principals, with the incidence of this lower at post-primary level.

It is noteworthy that ‘other teachers’ beyond the CT are more relevant for the post-primary

ST with 69% saying they get guidance on planning from this source in the round one survey

though this falls to one-fifth in the second survey. 72% of STs said they get guidance on

teaching and learning from ‘other teachers’ in the first survey, though again, the

corresponding statistic falls to 9% in the second ST survey.

Table 5.4 also shows some differences across the experiences of STs at primary and post-

primary level in both rounds of questionnaire surveys. The main difference, which is

statistically significant, is the incidence of CT feedback on the quality of teaching of the ST.

In both rounds of fieldwork primary teachers appear to be much more likely to get feedback

from their CTs than their post-primary counterparts. Unsurprisingly, related to this is that the

same pattern applies to being observed by the CT, with a greater incidence of observation of

primary students in evidence. However, as noted, the majority of respondents, regardless of

sector, reported having some dialogue with their CT about their progress in both rounds of

questionnaire surveys.

In relation to changes over the time period of roughly 2.5 years, the evidence, at least in

Table 5.4, does not suggest any trends in any particular direction.

Some items were incorporated into the second ST survey that did not feature in the first one.

Table 5.5 provides further quantitative evidence of the guidance available to STs based on

their responses in the second survey. Here percentages have been rounded up to enhance

readability and statistically significant differences, where they occurred between primary and

post primary, are highlighted.

A significant minority of STs (34%-43%) report that they get guidance about working with

other colleagues from their HEI tutors, CTs and other teachers. The vast majority get

feedback on the quality of teaching from HEI tutors and CTs with primary STs reporting

more input from their CTs than their post-primary counterparts. This bears out STs’

experience as reported in interviews. The CTs associated with primary STs tend to be in the

classroom almost all the time while the ST is teaching. That varies more for post-primary

STs, the latter CTs tending to be involved in other work elsewhere in the school and not

necessarily always in the classroom. However, when it comes to guidance on how to assess

learners, there is no difference between primary and post-primary with over half the STs

surveyed in each case saying they receive guidance from their CT about this.


96

In line with the international literature about the role of the HEI tutor in the promotion of

reflective practice and research, STs in our survey depend primarily on their HEI tutor for

guidance on developing professional portfolios/files and critical reflection and this is so

regardless of sector. Once again insofar as there is a sector difference, primary CTs tend to

play a greater role in this than their post-primary colleagues.

Table 5.5 again confirms the importance of CTs in offering guidance on discipline/classroom

management issues for STs and once again there is a significant difference by sector with the

primary CT more involved.

Table 5.5: Sources of Feedback to the ST by Primary and Post Primary in Round 1 (R1) and 2 (R2) Fieldwork

Primary

Students

%R1 %(R2)

PP Students

%R1 %(R2)

STs reporting they receive feedback on the quality of their

teaching from:

HEI tutor

CT

School Principal

100 (71)

62 (73)

26 (12)

91 (85)

43 (42)

23 (9)

STs saying that they are observed by the:

HEI tutor

CT

School Principal

96 (100)

82 (97)

13 (34)

90 (100)

37 (60)

14 (10)

STs saying they get guidance on teaching and learning from:

HEI tutor

CT

Other Teachers

96 (67)

74 (68)

32 (12)

86 (80)

73 (38)

72 (9)

STs saying they get guidance on planning from:

HEI tutor

CT

Other Teachers

Principal

79 (51)

79 (73)

32 (13)

22 (12)

77 (69)

70 (52)

69 (20)

24 (11)

STs saying they have conversations about their progress with:

HEI tutor

CT

School Principal

65 (98)

60 (93)

27 (78)

47 (94)

63 (85)

30 (69)

N=235 in Round 1 and N=396 in Round 2


97

Table 5.6: Guidance on how to teach by primary and post-primary (round 2)

HEI Tutor Other teachers Co-op teacher

N Yes % P Yes % p Yes % p

Class

Management/Discipline

Primary 234 45 NS 17 P<

0.001

***

87 P<

0.001

*** Post-primary 149 50 46 68

Total 383 47 28 79

Working with other

colleagues

Primary 235 32 NS 33 NS 43 NS

Post-primary 149 36 37 44

Total 384 34 35 43

The quality of my teaching

Primary 233 72 P=0.002

**

10. NS 73 P <

0.001

***


Total 382 77 9 61

School/classroom planning

Primary 234 51 P

<0.001

***

13 NS 73 P <

0.001

*** Post-primary 149 69 20 52

Total 383 58 16 65

My teaching and learning

Primary 234 67 P

<0.007

**

12 NS 68 P <

0.001

*** Post-primary 149 80 9 38

Total 383 72 11 56

Assessing learners

Primary 234 62 NS 6 P =

0.002

**

57 NS


Total 383 63 10 55

My professional portfolio

Primary 234 75 NS 3 NS 14 P =

0.044

* Post-primary 149 76 1 7

Total 383 75 2 12

Critical reflection of practice

Primary 234 85 NS 3 NS 30 P

=0.010

** Post-primary 149 87 4 18

Total 383 86 4 25

Discipline Issues

Primary 226 54 NS 12 P

=0.004

**

85 P <

0.001

*** Post-primary 145 51 24 64

Total 371 53 17 77


98

This quote from a first year PME primary student highlights the power a CT has in their

development:

Having a supportive, helpful and understanding class teacher in the class made SP

easier. Feeling like you could ask for help, guidance, ideas in difficult areas were

great. If I did not have a teacher who welcomed me and tried to help me so much, I

imagine SP would be much more challenging.

Typical open-ended responses on questionnaires included the view that ‘guidance from

teachers in the profession is very valuable to me to help me improve as a teacher’. As already

noted the incidence and nature of feedback from CTs varied much more than in the case of

the HEI tutor. This variation was particularly evident in post-primary programmes where

perhaps the tradition of class teacher presence/involvement was relatively more limited.

The following quotes reflect the range of student teacher experience in this regard from

observation of the student teaching followed by guidance and tips on how to improve to no

mentoring or guidance at all:

My CT sat down at back and commented on a few things – I was talking too much

and he told me to try and get the students talking more and get a student ‘to teach’ the

class, to take turns dealing with a part of the lesson.

One girl had no English at all in my class; I was trying to put Lithuanian words on the

board to help her. . .Chinese girl in my class, I was translating. My CT told me stop

doing that as she wasn’t going to do it for her when I’d be gone . . . various amount of

help from CT but help varies dependent on who your CT is and how co-operative they

are.

One of my teachers doesn’t help, she is not constructive. . . I have 3 CTs. . . . Some

have just one, some have more. It’s the teacher whose class you are taking becomes

your CT and some have one CT overall.

Most second year PME students have no real CT.

As we have noted there is much variation in the scale of support offered by CTs. In one focus

group of six primary year 4 students there was agreement that the amount of support students

get varies considerably according to the class teacher. One student in the group captured how

all felt when she said:

My CT is lovely, she is very accommodating, she just says ‘use what you want from

the press’ but she doesn’t say anything much about what I’m doing, she’s just happy

for me to get on with it. On my last placement I had a different experience, my CT

was always finding interesting things to show me, things I might read and everything,

showing me a book and going ‘this book would be great for you’, she was so into my

learning, it was terrific.


99

And another student in the same group went on to describe how her friend has a most

difficult relationship with her CT and how there is simply no communication.

HEI tutors are very aware of the variation and indeed inequity in the experience of STs with

regard to CT support while recognizing the power of the CT to impact very fundamentally

the learning of the ST as indicated by one tutor in a focus group interview:

…there’s an inequality there where you have a class teacher and if you have a

discussion with the class teacher and you point out certain things where that person

can assist the student and they go all out of their way. I had a student last year who

started off quite poor and the class teacher was superb, took him in hand and by the

end, it was a 1st year placement, by the end of it he was, he had just improved I’d say

300% and it was due to the class teacher who had taken him in hand. And then you

could have another situation where the class teacher doesn’t see it and they’re quite

entitled to that but it’s just it’s very fortunate for the student who has a good

experience.

However, STs also referred to what they perceive as variation in the feedback they get from

HEI tutors. In interviews with STs there was much commentary about getting ‘conflicting

advice’ from tutors and this is a concern to them since it is perceived as a matter of equity. In

one case students spoke passionately about their wish not to have one particular HEI tutor as

their SP tutor since that tutor is perceived as ‘harsh’ and ‘confrontational’ and ‘far too

demanding’. As a result of agreement in the focus group expressing this view, they put

forward the view that STs would welcome greater standardisation in how HEI tutors interpret

observed practice. Having more than one tutor observe and assess STs on SP is clearly

important in enhancing the reliability and validity of allocated grades, a theme we develop in

more detail later in the chapter.

The evidence overall points to the significance of the HEI tutor’s role in feeding back to the

ST accounts of how they can continue to make progress as a teacher. However, it is

important to note the additional significance of the CT role and feedback revealed in Tables

5.4 and 5.5 and via the qualitative evidence. Bearing in mind the international literature

again, this profile of involvement in feedback is what we might expect. Mindful too of the

still very early stage at which the language and role of ‘co-operating teacher’ exists in ITE

policy in Ireland it would appear that the CT is already playing an important role in the

support of the ST. The greater variation in the nature of the input of the CT is to be expected

given the diversity of practices in schools and the variation in the extent to which CTs are

available and willing to take on the task.

5.7 HEI TUTOR AND CT COMMUNICATION ABOUT ST PROGRESS This theme is part and parcel of school-HEI partnership in developing the ST and we

consider it here in this chapter in the context the ST’s progress in learning. We asked our

participant HEI tutors to tell us about their engagement and conversations with CTs (and

principals) about the student teacher’s progress. Most said they would seek to meet the CT

when they visit the school though it is not always possible, especially at post-primary level,

as the CT may be involved in other duties and not be available. On being asked about the

nature of the conversations, a common response at post-primary level was the following: ‘It’s

very light actually unless there is an issue. If the CT has engaged with the student then the

conversation can be deep but often that’s not the case’ (pp HEI tutor). Another common

response was the following: ‘it is very important to get the perspective of the CT, if they are


100

willing to give it. It’s not necessarily about assessment in the case of the CT. We need

assessment but the CT has a vital role - often a student will listen to a CT more than someone

who is assessing them’ (primary HEI tutor). In general the phrase ‘hit and miss’ seems to

capture the communication between HEI tutor and CT during visits at post primary level, as

suggested by this post-primary tutor:

I’ve met principals, I’ve met teachers who’ve just come up to me, oh, are you

supervising this student, I just want to say he or she is excellent and they give me all

the feedback. That’s for students that are excellent, you know, but sometimes the

teachers, the co-operating teachers really want to pass that information on. But it’s a

bit hit and miss with the co-operating teacher, I have to say. They might be in class. I

might have met the principal one time, the deputy principal the next time. I’m always

trying to make the connection but, you know, without disturbing their routines,

they’re very busy people, but it is a bit hit and miss.

All HEI tutor interviewees, regardless of sector, said that where possible they would speak

with the CT when visiting their students. And this is a point that many said was different to

the ‘old teaching practice days’:

Yeah and this is only a new thing like from my perspective. In the old days

you would say hello teacher, goodbye teacher, that’s it and none of your

business but that’s totally changed and it has to change.

While it remains very unusual, quite rare, for CTs to be present in the HEI tutor’s debriefing

following an observed lesson by a ST, it is not entirely absent:

This particular girl had a wonderful relationship with the host teacher. The host

teacher had, she was English born and she had been involved she told me about, I

forget the details of it now but a university in Liverpool, she was involved in

mentoring trainee teachers and so on. And she had a particular background to

contribute in this situation. Now I spoke to both of them and I asked them how, I

never reported this now but anyway, how they would feel about she’s sitting in on the

[debrief] and both of them are very much in favour of it and I thought in that instance,

I’m not recommending, you can’t make it blanket, but it was hugely beneficial. And

she contributed throughout the [debrief] and the discussion and so on and it was a

fairly equal three-way conversation.

HEI tutors also recognised the difficulty in generalising about the professional relationships

between the ST teacher and the CT due to the variety of students and experiences with CT.

As some STs in post-primary may be required to interact with up to eight CTs, this results in

idiosyncratic relationships that can vary by subject and year group. One HEI tutor suggested

that the relationship between the ST and CT is “generally a more benign relationship”

whereas that which exists between the ST and HEI tutor is “a bit more a business

relationship”, suggesting a complementarity in roles, if not clear division, between the school

based supportive role and the university based, evaluative one.

We also asked CTs and Principals for their views about conversations they have with HEI

tutors about student teacher progress. All the Principals reported having conversations with

HEI tutors when they visit the school to observe students. However, CTs were less likely to

have such conversations and some were critical of what they saw as a lack of appreciation of


101

their contribution. We revisit this theme with more particular reference to the perspective of

the CT in Chapter 6.

5.8 THE DEBRIEF AS A PIVOTAL VEHICLE FOR INTEGRATING FORMATIVE AND

SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND INTEGRATING THEORY AND PRACTICE For the purposes of clarity in presenting our evidence we are separating the more informal,

formative assessment dimension from the more formal, summative one involving the grading

of students’ performance. However, in reality our evidence shows that these dimensions are

not separate since the discussion and rationale surrounding the allocation of a summative

comment or provisional grade is typically bound up with explanation, guidance for future

practice, and aspects that need to be worked on. Referring to methods of assessing the

effectiveness of teacher education programmes Worrell et al (2014, 8) conclude that

‘formative evaluations should provide diagnostic information that helps produce successful

summative evaluations’.

The vast majority (in excess of 80%) of all STs surveyed in both surveys reported that their

HEI tutor shares assessment information with them with no significant difference between

primary and post-primary in this regard. 90% of students in the second survey agreed that

their HEI tutor gave them feedback on their teaching. This is especially evident when one

considers the debriefing and feedback sessions that students have with their HEI tutor after an

observed lesson which usually occurs immediately after a whole lesson has been observed by

the tutor. It also occurs in small group college tutorials with the tutor, on PME post-primary

and PME primary continuous block placement, when typically students share their

experiences and dilemmas with their tutor in a safe environment designed to reflect on

practice and to problem-solve for each other. In this section we focus particularly on the

nature of the debrief. Typically STs and their tutors use the term ‘debrief’ for these sessions

since feedback is their primary purpose. As can be seen from the evidence, what occurs is a

professional conversation in which the ST has the opportunity to reflect with their tutor on

what transpired during the lesson. The term, ‘professional conversation’ used in Droichead is

also applicable and highly relevant.

Appendix 1 unpacks some of the above discussion about teaching and learning with reference

to the kind of interaction that takes place between ST and HEI tutor following the observation

of a lesson. It is based on a selection from 2 debriefing sessions, (from a total of 7) with 2

different tutors, the first one lasting just over one hour, the second one lasting just under an

hour. Some aspects (e.g. the actual focus of the lesson/content) are changed slightly to protect

the anonymity of the tutors and the programme but this does not interfere with the actuality

of what happened. The first is a post-primary, practical lesson in a special educational needs

setting and the student is in her fourth year of a five-year programme.

To our knowledge there is limited data available in the Irish context on the nature of the

interaction that transpires between tutor and student about an observed lesson and

undoubtedly this is an area that would merit further study in the future because it represents

such direct evidence of what is really valued and monitored on SP. What is clear is that the

debrief is an important meeting point of theory and practice, and of formative and summative

assessment. It is a vital mechanism for integrating those elements and because it is directly to

do with the personal, context-laden ‘here and now’ experience of the ST, it is deeply


102

meaningful and thus a powerful source for the shaping of competence and identity of the

beginner teacher.

Unlike the evidence presented in other sections of this report we can’t claim that these

debriefs or professional conversations are necessarily the norm since our evidence base is too

limited to make such a claim. Because overall we witnessed a total of 7 debriefs across

primary and post-primary contexts, we followed up by asking HEI tutors in the second round

of fieldwork how they conducted their debriefs. Typically, tutors said they do so immediately

after the lesson and usually in the school itself. Occasionally it is conducted back in college

depending on practical circumstances of both the tutor and the student. Each such meeting is

reported to last between 45 minutes and over one hour and to range widely over the list of

topics presented at the beginning of this section. Tentatively we suggest that the limited

debriefing evidence presented here does align with the typical practice described in the

interviews and questionnaires but future research might usefully examine the nature and role

of the debrief across a wider and more diverse range of settings.

5.9 SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND GRADING Assessment results of SP are ‘high stakes’. This is so because they are perceived by students

and prospective employers as indicative of the competence of the teacher. Students

themselves perceive their results in SP as hugely significant and they pay very close attention

to the entire formative and summative assessment process. In the student handbooks in all our

case study programmes considerable space and detail are devoted to the assessment process

and students tend to be very clear on the procedures. As one Primary Director of SP told us:

Students themselves are aware of criteria from which we base our assessment, reports

that we complete, college is very exact and precise and demands certain standards in

those reports. We are highly organised in this, we are very professional but still, all

the time, we all have the opportunity to accommodate and facilitate individuality that

we constantly see in schools: classrooms, teachers, and schools as different.

We are not aware of any programmes in the State that do not grade SP – the main SP results

are not on a pass/fail basis (like they are for instance on most programmes in England) but

are graded such that the results influence the student’s degree classification. The HEI tutors

we interviewed accept that practice has to be observed and eventually summatively

assessed/graded in the interests of transparency and assuring the quality of the teachers who

emerge from their programmes.

The HEI is solely responsible for summatively assessing a ST’s performance of SP and for

allocating a grade. HEI tutors do not grade individual lessons on single visits, rather they

typically adopt a more holistic stance and determine a mark at the end of the SP module

based on all the visits, on progression of learning against the criteria, and incorporating

planning, reflection and evaluation as well as direct class teaching.

Moreover, students are not graded on every single SP – as they progress through their

programme and as the SP gets more extended they are graded. For instance, PMEs are mostly

graded on a pass/fail basis at the end of year one but are graded at the end of year two. In our

interviews over the two rounds of fieldwork HEI tutors said that a small minority of students

fail to progress because of not meeting the criteria and not making enough progress to give


103

the HEI confidence that they could make good the gaps in their competence as NQTs.

However, it is not possible to specify a particular percentage here since the approach is also

one of ‘counselling some students out’ during (as opposed to at the end) of their time on the

programme’. And as one tutor observed: ‘some students know themselves by Christmas that

teaching is not for them and so they deselect themselves’.

Student teachers are observed by more than one HEI tutor on the extended/10-week block SP

and sometimes by more than one tutor on shorter placements. In one programme, which

appears to be standard practice across our cases, the placement tutor reported that in the case

of a student who is considered ‘at risk’ (of failure) a second opinion is sought and the student

receives a visit from another tutor. Furthermore, if a tutor is concerned about lack of progress

of particularly poor preparation and lesson plans, they may remain in the school and observe

an additional lesson. In all cases it is clear that programmes have in place procedures for

addressing weak performances and additional support is made available to those who are at

risk of failing their SP module. There are also robust procedures in place for ensuring that

grading is trustworthy and consistent which we describe below.

There is recognition that there has to be a balance between demonstrating competence for

grading purposes and getting an opportunity to experiment and extend oneself in new

directions as indicated by this quote from a primary tutor:

In our second year students have a supported visit, there is no marking or grading

during that SP, so they take risks, they experiment, try something out, they teach a

subject – I had a student who was not comfortable with teaching Irish she said, I’m

not too good at the Irish and I said let’s use this time to prepare and she did because

she wasn’t concerned about the grade.

The grading of students on SP is based not only on performance in the classroom but also on

their wider professional engagement which is mainly evidenced through the classroom

planning, resources, reflections, evaluations, and accounts of contribution to the school which

are detailed in the student’s files. The following is a typical tutor response:

They get a grade which is also based on their written evaluation, their interpretation of

the feedback they get from us, it’s based on their learning; it’s based on performance,

but not only performance, they have to make a lot of the feedback they get and write

about that. We manage it, there is a lot of work.

Critical reflection is part of the grading. Generally this is not broken down into components.

This is how one programme assesses critical reflection: ‘we interview all of our students and

that’s 25% of the overall grade, there is a strong emphasis on critical reflection on the

personal and professional journey, they are interviewed by SP tutors after their placement is

over’.

Another tutor described their process:

We don’t directly assess/grade them in schools, we visit but don’t assess, we have

conversations. We assess them in May, there is quite a block of time between end of

SP at Easter and May. Every student is interviewed around 4 themes … It’s usually a

15-minute interview. School Administration, Developing my Initiative, Professional


104

Conversations, Contribution to my School Community. They select one and speak to

it for 5 minutes, while the interviewers pick another and ask questions about it. This is

all videoed. In this we are trying to get students to see the wider nature of teaching,

getting them to step outside the lesson, it is important to be a member of community.

This is also set up to give students an experience of interview: ‘something to talk about in an

interview– teeing them up for the transition to the school community’. Some newly qualified

teachers participate in these activities with students thus easing their transition to the status of

NQT.

Some tutors expressed concern about the impact of grading on the wellbeing of the ST. These

commented on how competitive students have become in relation to SP grading such as the

following primary tutor: ‘grading can work against some of them, they are so competitive,

they have such high standards, they don’t settle for second best, they put huge pressure upon

themselves’. And another noted ‘in recent years, I notice that they are not listening to me

sometimes – they are only interested in one aspect of what I have say – the grade, they ask

me ‘have I got a 2.1’?’

To conclude this subsection is noteworthy that assessment of performance on SP is through

direct observation. Unlike other dimensions of student teacher learning that tend to be

assessed more indirectly i.e. through written assignments or perhaps timed, written

examination, SP is truly a performance assessment. This means that validity is high: what is

assessed is what is intended to be assessed, it is the actual, authentic performance itself that

constitutes teaching and that constitutes its assessment. As Worrell et al (2014, 3) writing

about assessing and evaluating teacher education programmes claim ‘validity is the most

important characteristic of any assessment and is the foundation for judging technical

quality’. SP in Ireland aligns very well with what international evidence indicates as ‘best’

practice (Darling-Hammond, 2010, 14): first it is performance assessment as outlined, and

second it adheres to what is considered the vital practices of effective teacher preparation,

that is, practices that link in turn with good outcomes for pupils, although unlike the US

evidence, good outcomes for students is mostly qualitative and descriptive rather than mostly

test-based as it is in the US models described by Darling-Hammond. The evidence from the

sample of debriefs confirm this emphasis.

Drawing from various effective assessment models in operation in the US, Darling-

Hammond (2010, 14) advocates the following dimensions as the focus of ST assessment:

planning and teaching a series of lessons linked to appropriate level of pupils; daily reflection

on lesson taught with revision of plans in light of that reflection; analysis and commentary of

their own teaching included in their portfolios; collection and analysis of evidence of student

learning; reflection on what worked, what didn’t, and why; and projection as to what should

have been done differently. As demonstrated by the evidence in this Report all these

dimensions are not just included but made central in the performance assessment of STs in

Ireland.

5.10 ROLE OF CT IN GRADING It is clear that a key part of the evolving partnership between HEI and school bears

considerably on the role of the CT in shaping the ST for the profession. So far we are


105

concluding (from the above) that while CTs offer very important guidance to the ST, it varies

a great deal and it varies across sectors.

As we already pointed out above, HEI tutors are exclusively responsible for the summative

assessment of students on SP. We specifically asked if CTs play any role in summative

assessing or grading students and currently they have no role in allocating grades. However,

in line with evidence already presented above, the vast majority of HEIs surveyed (98%) said

they engage with the CTs and principals in relation to student ST progress and at least one of

our cases invites CTs to complete and return a template on various aspects of the ST’s

contribution. The latter asked CTs to comment on all of the following: punctuality,

appearance and dress, relationships with staff in the school, relationships with learners, lesson

planning and preparation, contribution to extra-curricular activities. The CT is invited to sign

the template.

We found that there are mixed views about the merits of CTs being involved in grading.

Some student teachers themselves tend to want their CT to have a greater say in grading than

currently but it must be said this varies a great deal with other students resistant to this idea.

Understandably their perspective on this is entirely influenced by their own experience and

relationships with their different CTs over various placements. The following gives a sense of

the diversity of views held by students as to the involvement of the CT in their assessment

and grading:

CTs should be 100% involved in formulating ST grades as they see their progress and

development regularly.

I believe that the CT should play some part in assessing you by providing

questionnaire feedback to the HEI tutor.

The inspector (HEI tutor) assesses you, the CT does not. No, it would not be a good

idea to have the CT assessing you. You want to be part of the staff as much as

possible and it the teacher is assessing you it would put a big strain on the

relationship. Above all you want to feel part of the school, definitely they shouldn’t

be assessing us at all.

The questionnaire survey of student teachers shows that 57% of primary STs and 63% of post

primary students said the CT should have a role in grading them on SP. An item on the

questionnaire also asked them to indicate their level of agreement with the statement, ‘my CT

is well placed to assess my teaching’. 63% of primary students and 42% of post primary

students agreed with this statement. Interviews with CTs lead us to the conclusion that, while

they are keen to engage with HEI tutors and offer their professional judgment on the progress

of the STs in their classes, they are less enthusiastic about having a say in their actual

grading, believing that this role would entail considerable additional work, would require

intensive training, and interfere with the nature of the relationship they may have with the ST.

In particular the view was expressed that it would certainly challenge the advocacy role that

some CTs adopt towards their student teachers (see below).

HEI tutors and indeed CTs themselves recognise that the HEI and therefore the HEI tutor has

the ultimate responsibility for the ITE programme and as such has ultimate responsibility for

the student’s grading. Moreover, there is recognition that the HEI tutor has the benefit of the

‘bigger picture’ in that s/he sees a wide range of students and practices and is usually highly


106

accomplished in mentoring student teachers and has the balance of theory and practice,

including awareness of all the other aspects of the student’s learning across the programme.

This experience is recognised, by all the stakeholders, as endowing the HEI tutor with the

broader and deeper comparative and ‘good practice’ lens that may not always be available to

the CT, particularly at this stage in the development of the new policy on SP. Such arguments

are persuasive.

However, not all HEI tutors share the view that the CT need not play a role in grading. The

following strongly held view was advanced by one senior HEI tutor with long experience of

mentoring students on SP when asked about the factors that would enhance her ability to

support students more effectively:

That all (CTs) would be up to speed on the assessment process and they should be

able to be involved in the assessment and I would go so far as involving students in

‘an exit poll’ the students themselves evaluating, like in professional development

hospitals, like medicine 360 evaluation. That’s where we should be headed and

encouraged to move to. And have schools opting out rather than opting in so a

precondition / assumption would be that they are involved. And really schools are

wonderful even now and willing to do so much.

Not unlike this view, a Principal of a large primary school said having the CT grade the ST’s

performance would be the ideal but how it would require considerable investment in CPD for

CTs:

Perhaps teachers should be more involved. And this (grading) happens in other

professions, indeed it may be the host professional only and then if there’s a problem

the College gets involved. Yes I think the teachers should have some role in

assessment. But it’s a time and resources issue. We see the students a lot more than

the inspector- you might only see the student a few times. …It’s a whole package, you

(i.e. the Principal) are looking at the ST everywhere in the school, the staff room and

so on and checking. The CT needs to see the whole package …. We should be more

involved in grading and have more autonomy in that … danger is though if we got the

autonomy for grading it would inevitably change the relationship you have with the

student…more CPD would be needed.

Another HEI tutor, however, expressed a different perspective:

We have to be careful about CTs being involved in grading- that would mean

considerable movement for teacher as primary assessor and while in theory and in

principle it looks good, the reality is it produces a huge amount of problems. It would

mean spending too much time with teachers rather than with student teacher… if you

are trying to deal with the teacher, broker the teacher into assessment, the reality is the

teacher as assessor can complicate experience totally…it is difficult as it is but add

teacher into this mix and it complicates the picture. I’ve watched it in operation where

tutor from college engage / placate the teacher rather than deal with student.

The above comment was offered in the context of the difficulties often encountered in

discussion about weaker students where the CT takes up the role of advocate for the student

and is often reluctant to tackle more critical feedback about the student. This is a view that

HEI tutors in all our case study programmes expressed and are very aware of. In one of our


107

primary case studies a HEI tutor noted that, notwithstanding the aspirations of the Teaching

Council Guidelines, where a ST encounters difficulties, HEI tutors noted the reluctance of

CTs to engage in a conversation about the matter:

You could see them even physically backing back, distancing themselves from you

because they just didn’t want to say anything.

A couple of teachers have said to me, ‘I’ll tell you what she is really like but please do

not write anything’...they didn’t really want it disclosed to the college

Cases where a ST is well known or related to staff in a school can present a set of complex

issues in relation to how the ST is mentored and supported, and ultimately assessed. As one

HEI tutor observed:

To give independent advice is something that I would have found is an issue and

particularly because we are now asking the students to find their own SP. It takes a

very brave teacher I think to come to a supervisor and say, ‘I’m not happy with this

student and I know she is a daughter of whoever in the staff.

Similarly, issues arise in the case of assessing STs in small schools, or in a small community

where a student is known in the community or where there is a family member in the school.

As one HEI tutor in a primary context observed:

Can you imagine how difficult it would be in a local school that gave an F to a

principal’s daughter or son? I mean it’s just ridiculous… I think there has to be some

very strong relationship between the supervisor and the class teacher, or maybe that’s

where it comes in.

CT interviewees themselves were not keen to have a formal role currently in the summative

assessment of student teachers where this would involve reporting grades (but see survey data

in chapter 7). While CTs provide an invaluable formative support, the typical response in CT

interviews was that they do not wish to ‘have anything to do with grades’ as one CT

expressed it. On the other hand, CTs are uniquely positioned to observe STs learning to

become teachers in a range of different teaching and learning situations, as well as within the

wider school context in ways that may not be evident to the visiting HEI tutor. The following

quote from a post primary school illustrates how CTs see their role and how they might

contribute to the overall ST evaluation:

...Not the assessment, but I would like to have a discussion with the HEI tutor that

they are only seeing forty minutes of a student’s time and we are working with them

for the whole year. For them to come in and not even acknowledge that we are there

and what we are doing with this work...and that we have inside information maybe

about the student...If they are concerned about something we could maybe alleviate

that concern and say, ‘We know, we have observed them, and I wouldn’t think that is

an issue.

On being asked about offering oral and written feedback and assessing students the typical

response is that CTs are very willing to offer oral feedback on observed lessons, to support

student teachers informally and formatively, rather than systematically and to a formal


108

template. The following extract is very typical of the responses of CTs about assessment of

STs in their classes. It derives from a focus group in a large school in a provincial town in the

north west, a school which has a tradition of taking STs from all the HEI primary providers:

Interviewer: Oral feedback? Written? How open to written?

Interviewee: I prefer oral.. verbal feedback. The ST should expect to get oral

feedback and they do; we don’t want to feel we are knit picking. We shouldn’t be

overly judging. We don’t want to be seen like we’re assessing them, making their

time difficult with us. We want to feel we’re on their side. We want to be seen as

having a supportive role, not as an inspector, we don’t want to be in inspecting role.

Interviewee: Grading is a matter entirely for the university. We have to remember that

these students are our neighbours, they are our ex pupils, so grading them would be

very difficult indeed.

Interviewee: It’s good though to be able to talk to you guys, and you guys do ask us

when you come in if there are any problems anything of concern.

Interviewee I’m happy enough as things are without having an evaluative/grading

role. I would hate to have responsibility for grading. Better left with the College.

The triadic relationship between the ST, CT and HEI tutor is one that will be considered

again in our section on partnership. For now, we note the disjunction in communication that

can occur and the potential for misunderstanding in the absence of dialogue, as one post

primary CT observes:

In a way, we are kind of left out...the relationship is obviously between the student

teacher and the tutor. The tutor comes into the school and leaves the school without

any acknowledgement or any hello or goodbye. But I have never formally met any of

the tutors.

Yet, the potential to gain a deeper understanding of the ST’s learning can be greatly enhanced

when communication flows, as described here, shedding light on diverse aspects of ST

learning, on the dialogic nature of learning between ST and CT, and ultimately developing

ST agency and self-efficacy:

Actually by chance I bumped into the inspector on the way out and went just had a

chat about the classes and what I had observed. And then afterwards the ST said she

was so grateful that I had said what I had said. And I said, well actually I told her the

truth…There were things that she was glad the inspector had heard, different

strategies and funny things I learned from her because students are coming in to us

with brilliant ideas and we are stealing those ideas then and it’s great. It gives them

great confidence.

5.11 BENEFITS OF THE EXTENDED DURATION AND CONTRASTING SP HEI tutors, especially those involved in PME for the secondary system, expressed the view

that both the extended period in ITE along with the opportunity to experience a contrasting

school experience have been very significant in identifying strengths and weaknesses in the

competences of STs. HEI tutor interviewees were keen to emphasise how PME students in

year two of their programme had shown they could contribute well to the school and be


109

highly accomplished in their class teaching. This was confirmed by some of our CT and

principal interviewees in that they tend to prefer to take students who have already

successfully completed one year on the programme. HEI tutors reported that in year 2 PME

most of the students are able to participate fully in the life of the school as teachers, as one

programme leader of a post-primary PME observed: ‘they have the competency and the

schools love them’. However a small percentage don’t have the competence, it seems, and

this is only becoming evident because of the extended duration plus the opportunity to be in

more than one school:

It is really emerging in Year 2. In the old system they were in and out but now we are

catching the weaknesses in Year 2. We are catching now in year 2 student teachers

who in the old system were not spotted until induction and then they are gone from

our jurisdiction.

Another HEI tutor in the same focus group interview (which, incidentally included tutors

who taught on both a consecutive and concurrent programmes) said:

This week alone we have 3 PME 2 students – where the schools cannot support them

and they are back into team teaching. They were ok last year but this year they can’t

hack it in their very different setting. Definitely it was a case that they were

comfortable in their own school where they knew people, safe and secure but now this

year they did not transition with the same level of competency.

And another develops the point:

One of my students is a slow developer – this girl is only now getting it (middle of

second year). She was fairly ok in school last year but she was very protected there,

there was no challenge but this year she has a lot of challenge and is now finally

getting it, but after 6 months.

A factor that influences progress is school culture. This is well known and understood from

the many research studies over a long time from several countries. One HEI programme

leader expressed some disappointment at what she perceives as the relatively low growth in

competence given the extended period of training:

I’m not seeing great progression in second years, as much as I expected. They get

encultured into the schools in a way that sometimes is not good for them. I have to

remind them of AfL, changing their questioning strategies over and over…

Tutors report that much depends on what the culture of the school is in which they are doing

their placement, one tutor suggesting that ‘cliques in staff room, members of staff they have

befriended influence what they do, they can be channelled into ways of working and thinking

that are not very reflective’.

Overall, evidence from our project confirms the value of the extended duration, more

particularly of the extended period in school, and most especially, the opportunity to

experience a contrasting placement. This was more evident in the case of post-primary

programmes. The latter is not surprising given that the requirement of a placement in more

than one school is entirely a new aspect for post-graduate, post-primary programmes.


110

5.12 QUALITY ASSURANCE: CONSISTENCY IN SUPPORTING AND INTERPRETING STUDENT

PERFORMANCE We already demonstrated how there are mixed views as to the potential of the CT as

summative assessor of the ST on SP. Our qualitative interview evidence shows that in general

they remain reluctant to be directly involved in the grading of STs but are willing to speak to

HEI tutors and offer informal feedback that could influence the grade. There seems to be a

reluctance on the part of CTs to offer written feedback, thus a resistance to a more formal

engagement with the process of grading. However, it has to be noted that a majority (67%) of

post-primary CTs surveyed (see Chapter 7) reported their desire to have a role on the grading

of the ST. Thus, our qualitative and quantitative evidence would appear to be rather

conflicting and this is discussed further in Chapter 7. The interviews allowed us probe in

some detail what would be involved in CTs grading STs and we conclude that expecting CTs

to write reports leading to a grade is not feasible at this point. Over the period of the study

some HEI tutors reported a slight hardening of this position with CTs apparently resisting a

role in assessing student performance and in some cases reluctant to have any part in feeding

back to the HEI on STs. It may be that this stance cannot be separated from the wider policy

context and developments in relation to Droichead, specifically in the role schools have in

supporting the induction of NQTs into the profession. As one post-primary HEI tutor and

programme leader put it: ‘over the last two years, teachers have pulled back fully. I go into

schools and they run a mile. Around the Droichead issues, there is a feeling expressed of

being over-worked, they (teachers) see themselves as doing our work and the ITE student is

not considered part of their community’. It is important to note that CTs have not been

required or expected to play a part in determining STs grades. The task of grading remains

firmly the exclusive domain of the HEI tutor who is extremely conscious of the

responsibility. As one primary HEI interviewee explained with reference to Droichead, the

assessment carried out by the HEI is all the more important as assessment of individual

competence is now only carried out at ITE level.

The HEI tutors perceive that students themselves wish to be graded, beyond merely pass/fail

and students simply take this for granted: they expect to be graded. The upshot of this is that

success criteria around student teacher performance in schools, along with their lesson

planning and evaluations, need to be clear, accessible and understood by all concerned.

Having objective, transparent rubrics which are communicated well in advance is an expected

feature of all programmes and HEI tutors, in particular, were unanimous in their emphasis on

this point. Of course how participants – HEI tutors, CTs and STs interpret them at local level,

given particular students in particular settings and contexts is a complex matter that

inevitably can be highly problematic involving significant matters of professional judgment

since it is not possible to pin down and pre-determine everything in advance.

Some student teachers themselves in their interviews (see above and Chapter 8 on student

experience) were highly exercised by what they occasionally experienced as inconsistency

across different tutors’ interpretation of observed practice. They reported that they get to

know their tutors and recognise what they want and expect to see when they visit. One

interviewee claimed that ‘at times feedback can be quite different among different tutors’ and

went on to argue that there should be more ‘common ground’ as ‘at times you can do the

same thing yet receive different response from tutors’. Thus, the ST perception is that not all

tutors have the same practices and students feel obliged to tune in to the particular emphases

a particular tutor might have. While the typical response from students was that HEI tutors


111

offered detailed and very helpful written feedback against the professional success criteria

and engaged in helpful debriefing sessions following observational visits, some students

commented that their tutors sometimes valued different things and thus they felt the guidance

was inconsistent.

However, HEI tutor interviewees emphasised the importance of consistency, validity and

reliability in the final grades conferred on student performance. They emphasised, for

instance, the comprehensive moderation processes that staff undertake to maximize fairness

to students and to ensure consistent interpretation of practice. For them, strict adherence to

the assessment rubric is crucial. In one primary programme for instance, the language used in

the evaluation form and with the student reflects the language of the rubric very closely, such

that the student should be able to recognise his or her grade on the basis of the comments

provided by the HEI tutor. Without exception, our interviews with HEI tutors and directors of

SP across the years of study talked about the mechanisms they have in place to maximize the

faith one can have in the grades awarded students for their work on SP. They were very

mindful that schools themselves tend to pay particular attention to that outcome of the initial

teacher education programme in job interviews. This unanimous position was confirmed in

the HEI questionnaire survey where 100% (n=80, Round 2) and 96% (n=112, Round 1) said

they receive guidance on moderating grades for SP. Moreover, 100% of HEI tutor

respondents expressed confidence in supporting students on SP while the vast majority (95%,

Round 2 survey) said they were familiar with their own HEI requirements for SP.

The mechanisms geared to enhancing the quality and consistency of HEI tutor feedback and

grades span induction for newly appointed tutors through shadowing more established tutors,

ongoing CPD on assessment and feedback for all tutors – full and part-time - communication

of exemplary and expected practices to students and schools, sessions to ensure tutors

understand and agree the professional progression of teaching performance over the period of

the programme i.e. the difference say between years 2 and 4 on a concurrent programme and

the difference between years 1 and 2 on a concurrent programme; and blind marking of

student folders/SP files.

The following quotations are presented as typical of the approaches adopted by HEIs in this

regard:

We have a rigorous procedure for the induction of SP tutors– it is way more

regimented in last 6 years – tutors shadow an experienced tutor, and will be involved

with 3 meetings with students in shadow capacity in order to know the ropes; we have

a lot of induction for new tutors. (PP HEI tutor).

All HEI tutors who are new go through a shadowing process, they don’t supervise

alone. (Primary tutor HEI)

We have several sessions on how to give feedback and discussions on how to

interpret practice … We’ve all had videos where we can compare / contrast

interpretations and these are of great value … in terms of developing a shared

interpretation of practice. (PP)

CPD training is about 2 hour duration at least 3 times per year for the tutor group. The

focus is on forthcoming SP; the requirements of the SP, any changes that have

happened tutors have to be aware of them. We regularly survey tutors to see what


112

areas they would like input on… for the last one, we had 5 lecturers from college

presenting on assessment, …while there are lots of guidelines in our HEI tutor folders

it is still important to have face to face professional development. We also have

moderation of samples of student folders – these are blind marking sessions.

In a lively focus group interview with primary PME tutors the training of all new tutors was

of paramount important to ensure consistent support to students and reliability in the

assessments made. The following is an extended segment describing the approach to the

induction of new SP tutors:

Interviewer: Great. In terms of professional preparation, just maybe a comment in

relation to the provision of preparation or training for the role, who provided it, the

school placement, what elements were included?

Interviewee 1: We had a day’s training here and we shadowed three different tutors.

Interviewee: Oh did you?

Interviewer: Yeah, I shadowed with one tutor for three days, and I shadowed with

another tutor for a day. And another tutor for another day.

Interviewer: And then did you continue on straight away in school placement or for

the next placement after that then?

Interviewee 1: After doing the shadowing I was thrown in, I suppose I mean, we had

the training course. We had a lot of reading, we got... we certainly got all the

Teaching Council guidelines.

Interviewee 2: And inputs from here, reading and shadowing. And a lot for each

placement. So we had great support.

Interviewee 3: And we have continuous support from the college, from everyone,

your consultant or (tutors and Directors of SP named), they’re only an email away or

a phone call away, and you are very much supported and scaffolded along the way.

Interviewee 1: And then we in turn have had people shadowing with us as well.

Interviewer OK, the cycle continues.

Interviewee 4: We try to start supervisors with first years, where the stakes aren’t that

high so it’s important that they start at an easy enough… And as well, I would also

say about the (contract/part-time) supervisors, particularly here, the contact between

them is huge the contact between yourselves which I think is very, very supportive.

Along with CPD for all HEI tutors involved in SP, a further approach adopted across all our

case programmes for the extended SP, is moderation incorporating a second tutor who

independently visits and observes the student’s teaching and then both tutors confer and share

perspectives based on the observed lessons. One HEI tutor said: ‘Having a second person on

visits is very useful so long as it doesn’t make the student more nervous’ (PP tutor) while

another in the same focus group explained how in addition to a second visit, some students

have an extra visit due to various factors such as having had a particularly ‘bad experience’ in

some dimension of the placement.

Also, HEI tutors frequently request an additional visit for STs who may be struggling and

such students are informed that they are to receive an extra visit from a tutor. Student

teachers who ‘made a poor start’ or who took longer to show indicators of competence

receive an opportunity to ‘catch up’. Tutors across all programmes described practices for

dealing with such students, mostly involving intensive debriefing and tutoring from

placement tutors.


113

One HEI tutor who is also a programme leader described their approach on a post-primary

PME programme. The description of the intensive grind in college (below) was not a feature

that others mentioned in this way but, especially in the case of those student teachers who are

struggling to meet the criteria, all HEIs mentioned extra visits, cross moderation, and

discussion with the CT:

If there is a sign of failing, we bring them back in, we give them intensive one-to-one

tuition and micro teaching, we do an in-house competency test here on campus; we

have some 1st years who can’t cope, they are at risk of the schools saying that they

cannot support them. We take them back, we do an intensive grind on classroom

structures, classroom management – usually those aspects but whatever they are

struggling with really. Then the person who is struggling but surviving in practice: we

do cross moderation, we give extra visits. We want to give them every chance to get

better and to pass. Teaching is a tough job but you have to be good at it, you have to

be passionate. We have to be cognisant of their wellbeing also as potential teachers.

Especially when they are gone from the university with no tutor support. We need to

give them every chance to show what they can do but make sure they can do it. The

CT is invariably involved in this conversation. You always talk to them on visits1. In

cases where student may fail, I would always talk with the CT – how the ST is

coping, relationship with students, school, try to identify pitfalls, we need to

understand the complete, bigger picture.

It is noteworthy that the role of the CT, as perceived by the HEI tutor, ideally involves

offering feedback to the HEI about the ST’s performance in the class and the school. Where

this happens it is highly valued by the HEI tutor, as in the above quote. However, tutors were

also keen to point out that it is not valid to use a CT’s testimony ‘to call a grade’ since as one

tutor said, ‘we can only call a grade on what we have observed’. At least one tutor argues that

even if one gets ‘good feedback’ from a CT one can’t use it in determining a grade for a

student. The latter has to depend ultimately on the HEI observed and evaluated practice,

lesson plans and evaluations.

A further dimension of the quality assurance process is the external examiner system in place

in all settings. This involves an experienced HEI tutor, usually a senior academic with a

background in teaching and teacher education, visiting the programme and accompanying

HEI tutors on some school placement visits, observing the entire process from observation of

the student teaching through to the debrief and the process of allocating grades in

examination boards.

5.13 CONCLUSION Key findings from this chapter can be enumerated as follows:

1The tutors in this programme tell STs when they are visiting their school, one of the main reasons being that they then have a better chance of meeting the relevant CT.


114

1. STs typically are observed and get detailed feedback from their HEI tutor on all

aspects of their teaching 4 times during their extended SP and all students are

observed and evaluated by more than one tutor on their extended SP.

2. Visits are typically not known by STs in advance but in one of our sites, students

receive a text from their HEI tutor the evening before a visit, partly to allow for the

possibility of meeting the CT.

3. Feedback and assessment are given against professional criteria that are listed in ST

Handbooks e.g. teaching/learning, planning, class management, differentiation and

inclusion, subject knowledge, assessment, recording and reporting, and

reflection/evaluation.

4. All students have some opportunity to observe teachers teach with greater opportunity

for this in the primary sector.

5. The vast majority of STs report that they receive guidance on a comprehensive range

of aspects of professional practice but only a minority reported receiving guidance on

some broader aspects of school life such as participating in staff meetings, dealing

with parents, and cross-curricular activities like Sport.

6. HEI tutor feedback tends to be very detailed, criterion-referenced, challenging,

focussed and bearing on professional performance including lesson planning and

critical reflection and evaluation. There is considerable consistency across how HEI’s

formatively assess their students. Feedback is offered orally and in writing and the

debrief provides for in-depth discussion and dialogue around pupil learning, and

targets for the ST’s own professional development. It is highly regarded by STs.

7. CT guidance and feedback is more varied in that it is not as ‘standardised’ as that of

the HEI tutor since much depends on the context and especially the available

expertise and time of the CT. In general, guidance is strong on planning, classroom

management and teaching/learning and is usually informal and rarely if ever written

down. It is also highly valued by STs.

8. A key difference in the nature of feedback from the HEI tutor and the CT, apart from

formality, is that the focus of the tutor is always the ST’s learning whereas the

primary focus of the CT is pupil learning and this partially explains the difference in

orientation. HEI tutors focus on a wide range and in considerable depth on areas of

professional practice and pay attention especially to reflective practice and students’

own evaluations and responses to earlier feedback.

9. The CT plays and important role in the support of the ST but there is considerable

variation in that support.

10. The main source of feedback and guidance is the HEI tutor but STs get feedback and

guidance from a variety of sources including HEI tutors, CTs, peers, other teachers

and principals. The vast majority of STs have conversations with their CTs about their

progress.

11. There are sectoral (primary/post-primary) differences with primary STs more likely to

get feedback and be observed by their CT.

12. HEI tutors are exclusively responsible for grading and there is currently a reluctance

on the part of schools to share this responsibility.

13. Summative assessment is not based on individual observed lessons but is based on a

holistic judgement of the range of factors and areas of professional practice. All

assessment, formative and summative, is based on direct observation, it is a

performance-based assessment with high validity.


115

14. STs’ assessments/grading are also high on reliability given the scale and emphasis on

quality assurance mechanisms for maximising the consistency of interpretations. This

ensures faith in the fairness of results to students and maximises equity.

15. There is no consensus, even among HEI tutors, about the potential role of CTs in

assessing/grading STs although the balance of evidence is away from such a role.


116

CHAPTER 6: SECURING PLACEMENTS AND SCHOOL-HEI

PARTNERSHIPS

The initial vision for my role was building the partnership with schools but in reality

the day to day is about securing placements and managing the overall process.

(Director of SP, 2017)

6.1 INTRODUCTION The new arrangements for SP in Ireland are happening in the context of an existing pattern of

relationships between HEIs and schools. These relationships stretch back over many decades

especially in urban and suburban areas, and the general hinterland around HEIs, and right

across the country in the case of teachers of specialist subjects who have come through

concurrent programmes. These institutional connections, built up over time, are enhanced at

the individual level as some school staff members and HEI tutors also know each other and

have various histories such as familiarity through having liaised with tutors about STs on SP,

former students from the HEI who are now teachers in schools taking students on SP or

principals and CTs who have or are pursuing further study at the HEI. The process of

securing schools with willing CTs is integral to the process of developing school-

university/HEI partnerships. The chapter begins with an account of the procedures for

securing placements and continues to present evidence on the nature of partnership

development and the issues constraining and facilitating that process.

6.2 PARTNERSHIP AND PROCEDURES FOR SECURING PLACEMENTS Many of the schools associated with our case studies have long established informal

partnerships with HEI providers and have a history of taking STs into their schools. School

Principals (SPs), Deputy Principals (DPs) and Co-Operating Teachers’ (CTs) spoke about the

long tradition the schools have of supporting students, some schools having a particular

history with one provider, often due to geography and connections going back decades.

Others, specifically in the Dublin area, have connections with several providers and take

students at various times of the year from different programmes. Many of those school staff

interviewed and surveyed also referred to the connection they would have had with particular

students. Some of their comments illustrate the point:

We’ve had students on SP for 40 years from all the colleges …

We have taken students since 1973 … we have a rapport with one provider … The

school has been involved since 1980 …

We take SP from lots of places … for years, at least 14 years here …

We have a relationship with (names the University) so we take students every year

from them.

We have taken students for 10 years now… We take students from one provider only.

We like to take our own past pupils usually regardless of what college or programme

they are on.


117

However, we also spoke with staff in schools, both primary and post-primary, where students

were on SP, which did not have a history of involvement with any HEI. This is the case

where students themselves secure their own local placement – typically a primary school or a

post-primary school for a particular specialised curricular subject. Thus the procedures for

becoming involved with SP vary depending on one’s subject, the phase/year and length of the

programme, and the ST’s own school contacts. This remained the pattern over the period of

our study.

A common procedure for securing the long placement i.e. the 10-week block or the

continuous placement associated with the post-primary PME in NUI colleges and the PME

primary is that students themselves source their school from a list of possible schools in a

given area, sometimes within a particular radius of their College. Arrangements are in place

several months before the student embarks on the placement. HEI tutors and especially senior

tutors (heads of schools/departments) and Directors of SP described the process of

establishing such a list of willing schools. The following quote represents the process on all

programmes except SPs that are selected based on the student’s own home area:

There was a huge effort made to identify local schools …we meet with School

Principals, talk them through what we do and what we value as important,

commitment involved, then we send out a formal letter to invite them get involved,

how there are a lot of school visits involved. Then we invite them to come to the

campus, we organise focus group collaborations in order to outline the nature of the

ask. We generate feedback from them; we develop a mutual relationship – we broker

relationships.

There are two key processes in the selection of a school for placement: a) the identification of

schools willing to ‘sign up’ to the new arrangements in particular the provision of a CT for a

student and b) the acceptance by the school of a particular ST for a period of time in the

school/class. Once a school has in principle agreed to participate, a student teacher who

wishes to be placed in that school usually visits the school and is interviewed by the Principal

or by another senior member of staff in the school. If the student is to go ahead and be placed

in the school usually there is some written communication with the HEI and the student. The

following quotes from various ST interviews give an insight into aspects of this process:

You have to give all details to College so we know for 4/5 months in advance

where we are going. The steps are: get the school first, then … we brought out

the letter to the school which the Principal must sign and we return it to our

College.

I [student teacher] had an informal chat with the SP for maybe half an hour.

In third year we do one SP in HEI area and one in our home setting …the HEI

provider sources the school close to the college and for our home SP we call to

the schools ourselves, explain how it works, if we have a contact in school it

helps … for the HEI selected school we simply turn up on the day, but for the

school in home area, it depends on the school …sometimes there is an

interview …sometimes not…


118

In Year 1 you [the student teacher] went to your own primary school, this year

the school is closer to the HEI provider setting …within a specific radius

…they [the HEI] sent us a survey with questions such as do you have access to

a car etc. and then the school is chosen for you by the College …

For PME-PP students the procedures were more complex in the 2015-2016 school year and

continued to be complex the following year, especially in the Greater Dublin Area. Students

were typically required to find a placement in advance of accepting the offer on the course. In

many instances, this proved to be problematic and prospective students who were unable to

secure a place in a school within reasonable commuting distance ultimately had to relinquish

their university place. From the schools’ perspective, the issue was compounded by the

increase in the number of students seeking placements as part of the two-year programmes.

However, where some HEIs alternated the days for placement in schools across the week

between year 1 and year 2 students, this alleviated the pressure on schools to some degree.

The issue was not as acute for PME primary STs although students themselves agreed that

securing a school for placement in the Dublin area was particularly challenging.

A message from our data in relation to procedures for schools becoming involved in SP is

that initial verbal contact from the HEI or the ST (via a telephone call or a school visit) to

secure SP is most valued by schools. The HEI providers that we interviewed and surveyed

typically send out (i) protocols/guidelines about SP: SP period, tutor visits, and protocols for

reporting concerns and (ii) a formal letter thanking the school for agreeing to host a ST.

Interviews with Principals and CTs allowed us to explore in some detail what the experience

and views are in relation to procedures for becoming involved in SP at school level, the

following indicative of the range of practices:

Contact with the school is vital … one university communicates only by email and

our confirmation is sent back via email … other universities would ring us and we’d

work out a list of students that may be suited to our school in terms of location etc.

The students’ contact us directly by email or they come in or in some cases the

college sends in the forms.

Students contact me and I meet with them. We don’t have an explicit partnership or

policy in relation to SP

The ST contacts me, we have a form they fill out, and we have a set of guidelines re

expectations, depending on the level…

X (naming one college) is very good, they send out different expectations student /

teacher but there are different expectations from every provider.

Students apply to us early in the year …we match subjects with our team and then set

up interviews …we select on that basis…

6.3 SOME INNOVATIVE PRACTICES


119

We identified a range of innovative practices in some schools/HEIs in relation to the process

of securing placements and supporting STs:

(i) a link teacher who talks with all of the teachers to see if they are interested in

becoming involved with SP; the link teacher becomes the liaison person with the

HEI provider and a support person at school level for the STs;

(ii) SP teams who meet regularly about SP and STs in the school;

(iii) school policy document on SP;

(iv) CT Handbooks prepared by the HEI but in consultation with schools providing

guidance on various aspects such as giving feedback, participating in observation;

(v) newsletters from the HEI to its partner schools about developments of relevance

to the schools; and,

(vi) training sessions at the HEI for CTs.

In all cases, CTs volunteer to take on the role of CT, the following quotes being typical of

school staff responses:

We return an email if we are interested in taking students …we let our principal

know.

We volunteer to take students on SP at a school meeting …

We now have a nice team of mentoring teachers that are willing to co-operate…

I would check to see if a teacher is willing to take a student … I wouldn’t impose a

teacher on anybody but by and large teachers are very willing.

One principal talked about the process in operation in her school and describes a reciprocal

relationship with her local HEI:

We take students as we have a very good rapport with [HEI provider] …criteria for us

is that we would have a rapport with the college – so (names the College and the

Director of SP) came out, made the link and then X was our ‘go-to’ person. …there is

a reciprocal relationship. It’s not just all one way, the school benefits. They are

prepared to work with us, we are benefiting in a more overt way…they come in and

work with us in a number of areas, we are benefiting from their expertise…learning

new approaches, the learning would be from the college - we would hope for a more

open link with the college, with the curriculum aspects of the college.

STs also were able to describe models of SP that primarily consist of one HEI provider

aligned with a number of local schools, usually located in the same geographical area.

It is worth noting an initiative introduced in one of our case study sites which aligns very well

with some of the effective practices described in the international review of literature –

collaboration, team teaching, co-teaching and lesson study. The example in our study is about

team teaching. The post-primary HEI programme team in this case have evolved a good

working relation with the PDST which itself has been developing team teaching in some 200

schools around Leinster. The initiative in the HEI programme involves ST and CT team

teaching, genuinely working alongside each other rather than independently teaching the

class. The training for this is provided jointly by the HEI and the PDST, with the latter


120

supporting the costs, enabling co-operating teachers to participate and get substitution cover

while away from their school for the training. The HEI and PDST work together to train the

CT and the ST to ‘operate in complex settings, sharing classes and to work through the

relationship issues and some of the other things that occur when sharing classroom space’. At

least two workshops explain the process with research evidence and illustrative scenarios.

Participants are invited to team teach in their schools and follow up workshops offers an

opportunity to debrief on the experience using profile protocols. The initiative is perceived by

tutors as very effective in extending professional learning opportunities for STs.

The model of partnership evident in our data, as described here, conforms to elements of the

approaches described in the literature (van Velzen & Klink, 2014). For instance a co-

coordinator model is where the school provides SP opportunities and there is generally a key

appointed teacher who maintains the relationship with the HEI provider and co-ordinates the

mentoring of the STs. A partner school model is where school based teacher educators are

responsible for the professional development of staff members and STs. In this approach, the

school-based teacher educator co-operates with the HEI provider in supporting the necessary

staff development. A network model is where teams of school-based educators, HEI-based

teacher educators and day-to-day mentors are responsible for the professional development of

STs within the school. On the basis of some the practices we found it can be argued that the

co-ordinator model, with some elements of the partner school model, as defined by van

Velzen and Klink (2014) feature in our case study sites. Further examples of innovative and

effective partnership practices are described in Chapter 9.

6.4 DIFFICULTIES IN SECURING PLACEMENTS The majority of student teachers reported that they knew the procedure for acquiring SP

across the various ITE programmes. Our evidence shows that 85% of primary student

teachers and 91% post-primary student teachers knew the procedure for securing SP. In the

second survey, conducted in round 2 fieldwork, this figure increased with 95% (n=395) of all

students reporting that they knew the procedure. 90% of primary student teachers and 78%

post-primary student teachers received a Handbook from their HEI that helped them know

the procedures and requirements about SP, according to our first survey. Again the incidence

of this had increased by the second survey: 88% of all students said they received a

Handbook and on this occasion the proportion of post-primary students (93%) so reporting

was higher than primary students (85%).

Despite the high incidence of student teachers knowing the procedures for securing SPs, this

knowledge did not mean that it wasn’t difficult to secure access to a school and the STs’ own

experience here is confirmed by that of the HEI Directors of SP. Some STs struggled to

secure their placement and asked HEI tutors, previous schools and family members to

intervene on their behalf. The following statements are from post-primary STs but the

difficulties were not confined to this sector:

Well last year I think I spoke to about 50 principals and sent out about 75 letters and

ended up having to go back to my old school (2017).


121

We have to aim to change the gender of our school for second year, I was in an all-

girls’ school last year and I really struggled to find placement. I didn’t get it till 20th

June. So, I’d sent off to 76 schools by the time I ended my count and I was hearing

that there was, you know, already a music teacher in schools, there’s only one per

department so they didn’t want anyone taking hours, so yeah, I really struggled. It was

horrendous. It was actually my tutor sorted my placement (2017).

You send reams and reams of CVs, emails, ringing and all the rest of it. I found

myself that unless you had a link to a particular school or you were a past pupil, you

hadn’t a fear of getting into that school. Many of the schools I emailed did not

respond, did not get back to me. Left messages with secretaries never got a response.

It was only because my aunt was very friendly with a principal that I got my first-year

placement. My second-year placement was my old school purely for the fact that I am

a past pupil. I think a lot of people are in the same boat in that regard. It is so tough to

get a look in schools (2017).

… In November last year I started to look for my second-year placement and I

contacted my aunt who lucky enough she works in the ETB and I wanted to get an

ETB for my second year just for contacts. So, she made a call and she got me then

into the school I’m in this year … (2017)

A number of STs were interviewed (both formally and informally) by the school prior to

being accepted for placement but this practice varies across schools:

I had an informal chat with the SP for maybe half an hour (2016).

I sent out a good few CVs and I got a call back from a few of them, I went to I think

three interviews and I was offered one and I took the first one and then I was offered

the other two. So, it wasn’t that difficult for me this year… (2017).

STs identify the process of sourcing schools for themselves as worthwhile and a good

learning experience somewhat akin to applying for a job, some even enjoying the process of

negotiating with the school to obtain their place:

It is hard but, like, then you go to the school and you have had that independent

experience of sourcing the school yourself and it is kind of nice to go in and it’s your,

kind of, it’s your deal with the principal.…it’s almost like, do you know, like looking

for a job, you are kind of like, trying to sell yourself into the school it’s …(2017).

Our evidence shows that 59% of HEI tutors surveyed regard their role as HEI tutor much

more challenging now (under the new arrangements) than it was in the past. Interviews with

HEI tutors allowed us to probe in more detail than in the questionnaire the new challenges

posed by SP nationally, specifically the need for more formal training and formal

arrangements in terms of student access to SP. The following quote is reproduced here as it

was offered in a focus group interview where all present agreed with its sentiment. Moreover,

in all our interviews with HEIs there was a sense of increased pressure in their role as tutors


122

and most certainly those involved in securing SPs for students, were very aware of the

challenge and would, in the main, align with the following:

SP puts increasing demands on schools and that is often difficult for us as it takes a lot

of time ringing schools and trying to appeal to their better nature. It should be a

formal arrangement whereby schools should have more involvement – it shouldn’t be

a voluntary arrangement, they should be obligated to take students and be involved to

that extent in their training… Each school should have to take an appropriate quota

and all should have to do it rather than some doing it and some refusing – the process

needs to be formalised….As it stands the HEI has to make it happen and we need

more help from the Teaching Council to encourage and push a bit more for the better

sharing of responsibility (for the formation of the profession). CTs need more

training, recognition and time devoted to the development of their role as co-op

teachers.

The various sources of evidence from our different informants allow us to conclude that

securing suitable school placements is the most difficult aspect of the new arrangements.

Developing the point highlighted in the previous quote, which is representative of Directors

of SP, the next two sections show how the process remains an informal one, with some

formal elements. Because schools are currently not obliged to take student teachers on

placement, negotiation on the part of HEI and students for places is likely to continue and to

remain challenging.

6.5 INFORMALITY AND HISTORY CHARACTERIZING PARTNERSHIP The various points of data collection and research methods deployed to probe the matter of

partnership in this study lead us to argue that informality and history still characterise school-

HEI partnerships and, while more formal arrangements in the shape of an MoU are talked

about, the nature of school-HEI partnership working remains informal, with communication

conducted by HEIs visiting schools and through phone, email and letter.

There is a move towards more formal links in the form of information meetings at the HEI,

setting out expectations for STs on SP, visits by HEI to school staffs to explain the new

arrangements, and courses that are free to selected teachers/schools. The rounds of

interviews, in particular, highlighted the transitional issues associated with the SP

arrangements and informants interestingly did not distinguish easily between formal and

informal agreements or understandings2. As we go on to show in this chapter part of the

informality stems from the very delicate balance that HEIs believe they have to negotiate

with schools in terms of securing school placements on the one hand and persuading schools

to allow student teachers to have access to various aspects of the school’s practice e.g. the

observation of teaching on the other hand.

2Survey respondents seemed to vary in how they interpreted the item on the questionnaires about MoU/A, some ticking ‘yes’ even when a formal written agreement wasn’t yet in place. This was checked further through the interviews where it was clear respondents interpreted ‘Arrangement’ rather loosely and as something ongoing and mostly informal.


123

The following segment from an extended focus group interview with six post-primary HEI

tutors on a PME programme, which included full and part-time tutors, is a good

representation of the perspectives on the formality of the arrangements between HEI and

school:

Interviewer: And, do you know, in terms of the relationship between the institution

and the schools, does the institution have some kind of formal arrangement with the

schools, it could be a memorandum of understanding, it could be some kind of

contract with them. It could be just a letter. Are you aware of that kind of formalising

of the relationship with the schools?

Participant 4: I think there’s an informal relationship with a school that I know of. I

don’t know that anything is in writing, but there’s a very good understanding that

they’re working together. So there’s cooperation there. I’m not sure if there’s

anything written down.

Participant 6: As placement tutors we’re really encouraged to make contact with the

cooperating teacher and to be very aware and cognisant of the fact that we’re

representing the college and building a relationship and honouring that relationship as

much as we can, so.

Interviewer: So you’re kind of the embodiment of that agreement, if you like, even

though it mightn’t be explicitly written down. In some way you convey that

understanding.

Participant 2: And we’re invited to reflect and share about that often. You know, it’s

something that’s kind of top of the agenda, isn’t it really?

Participant 4: I was asked, or it was said to me that I was going to be an ambassador

for (names her university) at interview, and how did I feel about that. So I suppose

that’s the nature of it.

Interviewer: That’s quite a formal role, then, isn’t it?

Participant 2: And I think the university has a school placement coordinator, who

liaises with schools, placement schools.

Our first questionnaire survey of HEIs showed that 69% (n=112) reported that their HEI has

an ‘explicit partnership agreement’ with placement schools. This figure had increased a little

in the second survey to 73% (n=80). Again evidence shows that our six HEI providers are in

the process of strengthening and building their school partnerships with individual schools.

Yet while 74% of HEI tutors surveyed in 2015/16 (Round 1) reported that their HEI hosts

information meetings about SP for School Principals and CTs, the corresponding statistic for

2016/17 had dropped to 56% and one-fifth of HEI tutors, in both surveys, reported that they

didn’t know whether their HEI hosts information meetings about SP for SPs and CTs.

On the issue of MoU/A with schools, 59% of HEI tutors claimed there was one in place but

one-third of respondents said they didn’t know whether or not one existed and 26% said they

were not familiar with its contents. The more in-depth qualitative data (see following quotes)

shed better light on this and essentially confirm the quantitative evidence that partnerships are


124

ongoing, that while formal written MoUs are not in place in all of our six case studies,

informal agreements are very definitely in place. HEI-based meetings, visits to school

personnel, and communication through email and letter are all mechanisms that are used in

the development of understanding in relation to SP. The following quotations from the

interviews describe some common practices and views:

We are still building partnerships. We have expectations and codes of responsibility.

We have lots of schools (50) and it is evolving but we don’t have a written down

MoU with partner schools. But we do have partner school days. (HEI tutor, 2015/16)

We’ve had a lot of change. We are trying to offer something to everybody. We are

still in a process of development.

We do not have an MoU, it is something we are looking at, we have discussed it in

the team ourselves. We are really awaiting further guidance from the Teaching

Council before we proceed. The current basis of communication is letters from us to

the school and from the school to us. We lay out our expectations about what students

have to do. We haven’t gone down the formal route and we didn’t get positive

reaction from schools about that approach anyway so it remains as grace and favour.

(HEI tutor, 2017 interview).

They [the schools] are stakeholders, we invite our CTs to reflect and respond to our

questionnaires and we invite them in for focus groups and they provide important

feedback, viewpoints – all very informative for us. (Director of SP and HEI tutor)

We have specific schools. We are keen to work with schools where good practice is

happening. We are working on that – schools – communities of good practice.

(Director of SP)

Several principals we interviewed in both rounds of data collection expressed commitment to

the new emphases in SP and believe they are evolving valuable partnerships with HEI

providers. Very much appreciated by the principals is clear communication about

expectations and liaison about what students are supposed to experience while on placement.

Referring to his experience of his nearest HEI, one principal commented favourably on how

the Director of SP ‘communicates openly and honestly with us, respects the school staff as

valued colleagues who work together in the reproduction of the teaching profession’ while

another noted that

our staff feel valued by (the HEI) … you are not just opening the school and taking

the student you are sharing your professional practice …you are valued for it. Tutors

come in here and express that to us – there is a sense of relationship, support.

All HEI tutors we interviewed placed a high value on the School Principal or on having a

contact person in the school who is familiar with the SP arrangements, especially in the case

of a new school taking on students on SP for the first time: ‘The School Principal plays a key

role in supporting the idea of SP. We are depending on the Principal to liaise with us re the

experience – particularly when it is a new school’.


125

A director of SP explained to us how he goes to schools to explain their ITE courses to them,

commenting that ‘it is very valuable to have the conversations ... I am willing to have whole

staff conversations...I get a better understanding of their perspective and they mine...’

Another primary provider similarly reported that ‘schools and receiving teachers get a lot of

documentation. When (names HEI) student comes in to a school they arrive fully equipped

with full documentation that schools needs’.

Three of our six case study HEI programmes do not have special meetings in the HEI to

discuss with their participating schools (or future potential partner schools) issues of SP nor

do they have pre-arranged courtesy visits to inform schools about the new requirements. The

reason for this is to do with feasibility, mainly the geographical distances involved and the

fact that there are so many schools with perhaps just one ST on placement. Three HEIs have

meetings for this purpose.

However, all six HEIs offer their local schools various opportunities to participate in events

held in the HEI from conferences and courses to student award ceremonies and research

dissemination days/evenings, some involving students who have been on placement in their

schools. In addition, all HEIs regularly invite teachers and principals from their partner

schools to input on various elements of the modules and this is also viewed as a way of

sharing and valuing the perspectives and practices of local schools. As an example a Director

of SP describes their experience as a ‘snapshot of how partnership can work’:

I see this as a snapshot of how partnership can work. We were having CPD, we

invited a School Principal, keen to get the perspective of a Principal; we offered her

payment, and she said no but that she would like to bring some of her students in to

college. We had a student on 10 week SP in the school and she organised everything.

She organised that 40 primary children came in here for a day, they experienced 3rd

level, nice sense of partnership. They had sessions on art, drama, sharing.

HEI tutors, including directors of SP, were unanimous in their claims that there are

ongoing, influential issues in developing SP partnerships though they are proactive and

have ‘made huge changes’ in terms of visiting schools to negotiate partnerships and as a

result, they claim that ‘the professional side is much stronger and much more profound than

it was in the past’. What are those issues that are constraining and delaying more

partnership working? We consider that in the next section.

6.6 PROBLEMS, CHALLENGES AND DILEMMAS The process of building good working partnerships is perceived as extremely demanding

for the HEI. This comes across at each round of fieldwork but features as a greater issue in

round two (2016/17). From a HEI perspective, the major challenge is ensuring their STs

have continued access to suitable settings in which to do their SP and this challenge

dominates the time and energy of programme leaders and directors of SP as captured in the


126

quote at the head of this chapter. HEIs are reluctant to ‘impose’ on schools yet they are

acutely aware of the requirements around observation, the 10-week block and so on. HEI

staff appreciate the increased accountability pressures on schools in recent years especially

regarding literacy and numeracy targets in the case of the primary sector.

The tension resulting from maintaining this balance between compliance with the TC/HEI

requirements and having enough schools for students is perceived to be even more

challenging by the broader professional context, specifically the induction process of newly

qualified teachers (NQTs). Overall, this means that HEI tutors believe they are negotiating

their working relations with schools and brokering new arrangements only with arguments

around what is good practice and good professional development for ST in ITE rather than

with any other inducements or incentives. It is perceived as resource-intensive work. As

one Director of SP asked, ‘what is the incentive for a school to take a ST?’

The following quote about securing school placements for students is reproduced here as it

was offered in a focus group interview where all present agreed with it but is also

illustrative of the message obtained in every other interview we conducted in both rounds

of fieldwork and is thus an important aspect where there is strong consensus in the system:

By 1st August every year we have 40% still without SP – we spend all of August

sourcing. There is often disorganisation on the student’s part. We end up having to

do the begging, leg work. It is tough. The ball is in our court. (PME PP, 2017)

As we noted above HEI tutors believe that if all schools were obliged to take an appropriate

quota of STs the challenge of the new arrangements would be considerably lessened for

both HEI tutors and students themselves. All tutors are aware of their limited power to

oblige anything at school level and are very conscious of over-asking or being impositional.

This tutor and Director of SP is very sensitive to the existing demands on schools and is

reluctant to be seen as making yet more demands in relation to ITE students. He says

we are formally engaged with students on practice. The teacher hosts the student –

acts as coach, support, mentor. We don’t provide a formal list of expectations that

they (the teachers) must adhere to; it is not our responsibility to impose expectations

on teachers – we operate more on grace & favour. We complement: we grade and

they don’t.

Another tutor emphasised how HEI tutors have to be ‘ultra diplomatic’ in their

engagements with schools, how some are ‘afraid of offending the school lest all support is

withdrawn for SP’, This tutor was making the point that instead of local MoUs and

agreements there needs to be a ‘national agreement’ in place that all schools sign up to.

While this view about a national agreement was stated in at least two focus groups and by

two different providers, it was not a point that was asked of or mentioned by the majority of

interviewees. Yet all those tasked with doing the school-university negotiations on SP say it

is extremely challenging work.


127

The reality is that now students are visibly on SP as learners as well as teachers. This is a

big cultural shift, more challenging, it appears, at post-primary level and on consecutive

programmes than at primary level and on concurrent programmes. Tutors report that

schools are very aware of this shift. While clearly this is positive in terms of the policy, the

downside, according to some tutors, is that it is way more ‘troublesome’, ‘inconvenient’

and ‘intrusive’ on schools/classrooms. With a view to understanding the challenges at

school level one senior post-primary tutor and programme leader describes her experience

currently compared with the previous arrangement when students were primarily in the role

of class teacher while on placement:

STs in school prove most inconvenient for the staff, they have a lower status than

the subs. Teachers and management see it as being another inconvenience and they

don’t delegate any co-ordination of it to a staff member, despite the Teaching

Council expectations. Really in most schools for us there is no one person

responsible for integrating ITE students into the school and we have no power to

change that. In the old system – there was a mentor who took responsibility – there

are now different principles for operation. We have an expectation that there is

some inter connectivity but it is not there. The fact is that now students are in school

as learners not just as teachers like they were before, and also now its 2 year run, it

was 9 months. This makes a big difference. On the (names the undergraduate

programme by the same provider) they are seen as learners more readily, they are

better accommodated at that level. Schools don’t know how to deal with new PME

student.

Along with referring to the time factor, the following HEI tutor also expresses concern how

she feels as a public provider the work she does is not sufficiently valued. She refers to

another provider who she perceives to be less organized than her own programme:

The TC talks about developing collaborative partnerships with schools. We need to

make sure relationships are positive. This takes a huge amount of energy and time

on our part. We do a lot of work in developing partnerships – it’s very time

consuming – we need to develop partners in a valuable and successful manner. …

The work the public provider endeavours to do – needs to be appreciated / valued.

Private providers ask students to secure placement so a principal may have had 10

calls from private provider students and when you call with your co-ordinated

approach you hit a negative response. …It jars with our professional development

and professional partnerships and the relationships that HEIs are brokering. It

results in negative reactions for us - Our approach is much more co-ordinated –more

meaningful.…

Although it is the view of HEI tutors that most CTs need more training, recognition and

time devoted to the development of their role, some pointed out that teachers are not

necessarily willing to devote time to additional training when it is made available. As one

Director of SP reported to us: ‘last year we offered a free summer course on

coaching/mentoring in schools – but the take up was extremely low. 4 teachers expressed

an interest and in the end there was no take-up from teachers’.


128

The perceived lack of power on the part of HEI tutors to require schools to take students

combined with limited resources devoted to the training of CTs is a major constraint to the

faithful enactment of the new arrangements. The general view is that the HEI is tasked with

implementing the new arrangements in the absence of any mandatory pressure on schools

such as a reference to it by the DES in School Self Evaluation documentation, which one

HEI tutor and senior person in the HEI argued would confer some status on a school’s

engagement with the process of initial student teacher learning. As one of our programme

leaders observed:

The HEI is the only body that has enacted the policy, but we find ourselves in

selling rather than negotiation mode; we have nothing to negotiate with. We are

always selling. Schools are giving us a gift when we secure placements, they are

giving us a gift. We can’t afford to be assertive with schools – we would be left high

and dry – with students appealing. So yes we are risk averse in case schools refuse

us, look what happened to Droichead (primary tutor and programme leader).

The last sentence in that quote refers to the fact that teachers have refused to give

judgemental feedback to the Teaching Council about newly qualified teachers in the

induction process. The fear among some HEI tutors is that schools can easily refuse to take

students on school placement, potentially triggering appeals from student teachers and, at a

minimum, putting further pressure to seek out new schools for students.

HEI tutors expressed their understanding of the dilemma CTs face insofar as they are not

incentivised by having paid training days as happens in the case of Droichead which they

argue sends a message about what is really valued: as one programme leader commented:

CTs are not incentivised … on Droichead they get days away for training. Lots of

resources put into Droichead but no supports in ITE, no time, resources… In terms

of the developmental continuum this makes no sense…

In one very animated focus group interview with HEI tutors, the view was expressed that

the only solution to the current dilemma is the idea of a ‘professional learning school’ for

ITE students:

what comes down to our responsibility is the basic qualification and then the

profession takes over … opening the eyes of profession to earlier intervention …

professional responsibility for ITE student… comes back to the idea of a

professional learning school and a link with resources from Droichead. It has to be

something like Nursing, they have their clinical teaching hospitals, somebody has

time in their workload to do it; instead of 22 hours have 20… And ultimately it

comes back to ownership, having a mentor, who knows the role but this does not

exist in ITE. Difficulty leaving it to the discretion of school…it has to be opt out

rather than opt in.

All HEI tutors were in agreement, unsurprisingly, about the importance of clarity of

expectations as to what student teachers have to do on SP. One Director of SP typifies the

point about the need for communication with individual schools but also the considerable

cost of this:


129

A key thing for schools is that they need communication from HEIs. No one size fits

all –if SP is to be successful time has to be invested in communication, not just

letter / email, actual face to face, we had 180 students going on SP – we contacted

and spoke to each school, not reflected in budgets or financial support and yet it has

to be done and is working.

We mentioned principals’ views in a positive way above. However, some principals were

more critical in relation to brokering SP partnerships with HEI providers, and expressed

concern in particular about the diversity of requirements on STs from different programmes

and colleges which in turn the school has to deal with:

I realise the differences between the colleges: we take it for granted – there is huge

variation. I received one courtesy visit from a HEI and an email but that is all.

Another HEI provider – well they are people who care about the ST and us [school],

they don’t just say they care but they show they care. You can get a lovely letter

from another HEI but not any sense of caring. Harm can be done if the ST doesn’t

understand the way the school works and how SP works here.

A major ‘take home’ message communicated to the research team especially by programme

leaders and directors of SP is the need to develop a more coherent, national solution to the

problems of securing suitable school placements. The argument advanced by this key

group, regardless of sector, is that the solution has to be a national rather than merely a

local one. The concern is that it is national policy that STs are in schools and classrooms

with co-operating teachers and as such the development of the CTs for their role should not

be the total responsibility of the HEI, how that has to be resourced appropriately. The view

is strongly expressed that ‘it should not be down to any one HEI to work out how the CT

behaves and prepares for a ST’ and HEI programme leaders resist what they perceive to be

the current emphasis on ‘what we will do for you if you take our students’. A key question

for all involved is how best can the various stakeholders contribute to the learning of the

ST? It may be that the various interested parties from unions to professional associations

and from DES to TC need to revisit that searching question. Rather pessimistically, one

Director of SP confirmed the views of his counterparts in saying:

At the moment we talk about partnership...it's a one-side partnership. There is no

onus, no responsibility for the school to partner with the HEI. Until there is an onus

or responsibility...you can't have a partner with only one institution in the

partnership! We are doing a lot of flirting and trying to engage but schools can

either take it or leave it. Some schools decide not to engage with any HEI and the

only time they contact us is when they have a teacher shortage.

6.7 CONCLUSION The main finding from this chapter is that the development of school-HEI partnership is

hampered and dominated by the challenge of securing school placements for student

teachers. Uncertainty and unpredictability about the supply of places mean that senior HEI

staff are unable to devote adequate time to other aspects of partnership development such as

co-teaching/team-teaching and the sharing of action research studies. HEI programme

leaders and SP Directors are at one in pleading for a national solution to this difficulty.


130

It is noteworthy that some HEIs have set out to develop and design online and technological

resources to support the administration and organisation of school placements. Custom-

built environments have been developed as existing VLE (virtual learning environment)

platforms lack the necessary functionality to serve the organisation and administration of

placement (Donlon, 2017). METIS, developed by Mater Dei Institute of Education (now

incorporated with DCU Institute of Education) is currently in a development process which

aims to support the management of placement. Also, the custom-built TUS platform

(Teacher, University and School Placement System), developed by Mary Immaculate

College and University of Limerick, also seeks to support the administration of school

placement.

While the development of these platforms is undoubtedly beneficial for the HEIs and

schools concerned, it is clear that there is a need for a nationally agreed approach to ensure

greater systemic coherence and ease the administration burden on HEIs and schools alike.

It is clear from the evidence presented in this chapter that it is also necessary to devote

more attention to the nature of partnership expected and more specifically there is a need

for the Teaching Council to clarify further the roles and responsibilities of schools and

HEIs in relation to supporting STs on SP.


131

CHAPTER 7: PERSPECTIVES OF COOPERATING TEACHERS,

PRINCIPALS AND DEPUTY PRINCIPALS

7.1 INTRODUCTION The following chapter outlines the perspectives of cooperating teachers (CTs) and principals

and deputy principals (DPs) in the study as they experienced the changes in the Teaching

Council requirements over the course of the study. Data was gathered in two phases: Round 1

involved conducting focus group interviews and issuing questionnaires in schools attached to

the six selected case studies. This process was repeated in Round 2 although the participants

differed due to issues of access in some cases. Those who participated in both rounds of data

gathering provided a sense of continuity in the evolution of the process. Conversely, those

who contributed views in one phase only provided an important snapshot of teachers’ views

and experiences captured ‘midstream’ as it were, without recourse to a previous discussion

with the research team or contextual basis. We believe that the combination of evidence

drawn from different sources, at different stages, and from both the primary and post primary

sectors has enabled us to avoid research bias. Moreover, the interweaving of perspectives

brings an authenticity and validity to the data.

This chapter provides insights from schools from the perspective of cooperating teachers at

primary and post primary teachers in the first instance. Views of school leaders are also

incorporated and these are also addressed in a discrete section in the latter part of this chapter.

The main themes addressed in the chapter are as follows: Knowledge of the Teaching

Council policy; Policy at school level for accepting a student teacher; Awareness of a formal

partnership amongst CTs; Professional preparation for the role; Classroom practice with

student teachers; Availing of discretionary time; Engaging in dialogue with the HEI tutor; the

Role of CTs in assessment and grading; Formal grading; Cooperating teachers' view of how

they see themselves professionally; Future CPD for the role of the CT; Benefits of the

extended period of SP including the 10-week block; Principals' and Deputy Principals' view

of SP. The chapter concludes with a brief summary of the main points.

7.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE DATA FROM COOPERATING TEACHERS In approaching schools associated with each of the case studies, we sought to represent

cooperating teachers from as many different types of schools as possible within the confines

of our sampling. Variation in school type was largely achieved through the questionnaire data

where the sample was drawn from a range of schools across: size, gender, level, sector,

economic status, medium of instruction, patronage and location. The respondents were

almost evenly divided between primary and post primary teachers, almost all of whom were

mainstream classroom teachers, of which two-thirds were female and one-third male.

Principals and deputy principals who contribute to the coordination of SP were also included.

(See Tables 4.2 and Table 4.3 for details of participants in Round 1 and Round 2 of the data

gathering.)

7.3 KNOWLEDGE OF THE TEACHING COUNCIL POLICY From the perspective of cooperating teachers, knowledge of the current arrangements for

taking a student teacher for SP tended to be vague in many instances. About half of the


132

teachers who responded to the survey in Round 2 of the data collection (n=52) indicated that

they were aware of the Teaching Council guidelines on SP. In relation to knowledge of a

written policy in their own school, again about half of primary teachers and a quarter of post

primary teachers indicated that there was one, while just over one third stated there was none

and the remainder did not know if their school had one or not. This was also reflected in the

interview data as the comments below illustrate:

[CT] I’m not as familiar with the policy from the Teaching Council. We do get

guidelines from all the colleges and all that but I wouldn’t be as aware. I’d have to

read up on those ones.

[CT] I know about the extra time on the course and on school practice, beyond that I

don’t know. I presume the extra year is the main change.

7.4 POLICY FOR ACCEPTING A STUDENT TEACHER In terms of policies and procedures for accepting a student teacher, arrangements seemed to

be ad hoc across all settings. We are mindful that the schools who participated in the current

study have, by definition, long associations with the HEIs and many years of experience of

supporting student teachers and therefore patterns of involvement can reflect previous

practices as well as the transitions towards the new arrangements, as alluded to in the

following statements were typical of primary contexts:

[CT] There’s some kind of agreement with the institution and these are the guidelines

of what to expect of the students, 3 lessons, or whatever the case may be. Yes, it is

more that kind of thing but we have an informal talk before the students come

sometimes.

[CT] Usually a student comes along looking for a place and we can then opt to take a

student. We usually take several every year. The principal would ask and you opt then

to take the student.

Knowledge of the procedure can vary among teacher as the following CT remarks:

[CT] No, I don’t really know, not really, they (students) just arrive and they let us

know what they have to do.

In some cases, the contrast with previous arrangements is quite marked in that post primary

schools in particular might have had a small or limited number of Higher Diploma (HDip)

students on a one year programme who was in situ for the full school year. This has been

replaced by huge variation in the PME PP and the four-year concurrent teacher education

programmes in both nature and duration, i.e., in terms of SP blocks of particular days,

mornings or afternoons, semester-long, year-long, or year 1 and year 2 requirements or

expectations; as well as specific requirements for particular programmes such as home

economics, physical education or religious education. Managing the logistics of the allocation

of placements in schools is therefore highly complex, even when the addition of student

teachers to the staff is largely welcomed, as the following quote from a post primary deputy

principal illustrates:

[DP/CT post primary] It has been growing exponentially in the last number of years

since we first started in the school with 3 HDips and now to 17 students, between year


133

1 and year 2 and between the block placements from different universities. There are

lots of positives but there are also negatives with regard to space …space for

everyone in the staffroom… and the same students [pupils] getting student teachers

each year. I suppose the positive is that it brings a fresh approach and new blood into

the school and lots of new ideas. And professionally it helps both ways in learning

from each other.

Notwithstanding the recommendations of the Sahlberg Report (2012), the number of

providers of programmes in teacher education remains high and we have noted the enormous

variation among programmes, even within the same HEI. It would appear that in trying to

distribute the SP requirement and provision to schools and perhaps lighten the pressure for

placements, HEIs have configured the SP requirements in unique ways across the school

year. However, from a school perspective, this has created other organisational challenges for

CTs and school level SP coordinators in preparing for, mapping and supporting STs.

7.5 AWARENESS OF A FORMAL PARTNERSHIP During the focus group interviews, responses from CTs suggested that they were unaware of

a formal partnership with a HEI in relation to school placement. Survey data gathered in

Round 2 (n=52) sought further information on whether SP had been discussed at school level

and the nature of communication with the HEI. The survey data revealed that SP had been

discussed at a meeting in the school according to 60% of primary teachers and 67% of post

primary teachers. The vast majority of CTs had not been invited to attend a meeting with

their local HEI to learn about the new arrangements, nor did they know if a colleague had

attended such a meeting. The existence of a formal partnership arrangement with a local HEI

in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding/Agreement (MoU/A) was also appeared to

be absent with just 4% of teachers declaring that there was one, and almost three-quarters of

teachers stating that that did not know of one, or believed there was none (16% of primary

and 19% of post primary teachers). Knowledge of a courtesy visit by a HEI member of staff

was also low with about 20% of primary teachers and 7% of post primary teachers being

aware of such a visit. Despite this lack of awareness of formal arrangements, the majority of

teachers (80% at primary and 89% at post primary) indicated that they have a say in whether

or not they host a student teacher in their class.

7.6 PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION FOR THE ROLE A key document in preparing teachers for their role as a CT is found in the Teaching Council

guidelines which is an essential document that explains the new requirements and is freely

available on the Teaching Council website. In terms of professional preparation for the role

of cooperating teacher, less than half (44%) of primary teachers and 22% of post primary

teachers in the Round 2 survey stated that they had received adequate professional

preparation for their role as a cooperating teacher; these figures are similar to statements by

the teachers in terms of their familiarity with the HEI requirements for SP. Teachers’ views

on the helpfulness of the guidelines on SP again reflect their uncertainty surrounding these

documents with only about one-third of teachers in both sectors having no opinion on their

usefulness but as noted above about half said they were aware of the Teaching Council policy

on SP. Just 12% of primary teachers and 41% of post-primary teachers agreed or agreed

strongly with the statement that ‘the guidelines on SP for CTs are helpful’. Similarly, over

half (56%) of post primary teachers agreed with the statement that that these were reasonable,

while only 4% of primary teachers held such views.


134

Observation is considered a central element in the student teacher’s development according

to the Teaching Council guidelines. Among primary and post primary cooperating teachers

who responded to the survey, there was a clear 100% agreement that student teachers should

have a period of observation of teaching in the SP class. In relation to student teachers team-

teaching with their cooperating teacher, again, there was a high level of agreement among

both primary teachers (80%) and post primary teachers (78%) that this was a good idea. In

practice however, the experiences of observing a student, being observed as a cooperating

teacher and team teaching varied considerably, depending on the school culture, context and

sector as we shall see later in this chapter.

Our evidence from primary cooperating teachers in the study was that they had not received

formal CPD for the role and tended to draw on previous experiences with their various HEIs.

In this regard, not all CTs were positive about their preparation for their role as the following

comments illustrate:

[CT] It would be useful to have focused guidelines, for the HEI tutors to come and

meet with us, tell us what is expected, there is no onus on the HEI tutor to find out

what we thought about a ST, you feel like you don’t have a structured role, in an ideal

world you would like something concrete, some criteria to use …we could work on

aspects throughout the SP if we had these …very unstructured currently…they don’t

see the development during and over classes …if we have concerns…where do we

go, what do we do …they only see the snapshot …

[CT in rural school] Grey area. They [student teachers] just land in and teach x

lessons a day. Our role was never really worked out I think. [CT in rural school]. There’s a fuzziness about the role of the CT. When I was a

student, other teachers helped and from my teacher I got lots of feedback. [But now]

I’m not sure on whether and how to give feedback on all lessons or some lessons.

Ten questions in the survey instrument in Round 2 (n=52) addressed the issue of the

cooperating teacher’s readiness for the role and drew attention to various dimensions of day

to day teaching such as classroom planning and teaching and assessing pupils’ work. Both

primary and post primary teachers expressed a high level of confidence in their capacity to

support student teachers, although post primary teachers expressed a higher level of

agreement with all the statements, i.e., in supporting students with classroom planning

(primary: 84%; post primary: 96%); teaching and learning; classroom management; and

assessing pupils’ work (primary: 96%; post primary: 100%); addressing matters of

professionalism with student teachers (primary: 80%; post primary: 89%); providing

feedback to the student teacher on the quality of their teaching (primary: 72%; post primary:

82%).

However, during Round 2 data gathering, a more proactive approach was evident in some

instances, building on other initiatives, such as Droichead.

[CT in large urban school] Now with the Droichead as well I would be familiar with

students coming in and out to me—that’s been happening as well. So a student would

come in for certain lessons and also another colleague is doing it because the school is

so big there’s all that kind of stuff going on. She was doing a peer learning project so

that was teachers observing teachers, so I was involved in that as well.

[CT in rural school] You feel fine, depends on how willing they are to work with you,

some disinterested, you have to motivate them and it’s harder. It’s easier when they


135

are enthusiastic. Mostly I would feel very confident about taking a student and

helping them.

[CT in rural school] I have confidence in my ability to coach. I have more than

enough experience at this stage. I would feel very confident.

7.7 CLASSROOM PRACTICE WITH STUDENT TEACHERS The frequency with which cooperating teachers and student teachers engage in various

practices in the classroom—from every day to once per placement period—was considered in

a set of 14 questionnaire items in Round 2 (n=52). It would appear that having a student

teacher observe the cooperating teacher occurs about twice as often in primary classrooms

(everyday: 40%; 2-3 times a week: 24%) compared to post primary settings (everyday 17%;

2-3 times a week 17%). The higher frequency is repeated for primary teachers in almost all

the activities that occur in the classroom, for example as show in Table 7.1 below:

Table 7.1: Frequency of cooperating teachers’ practices with student teachers

Classroom practices Primary Post primary

Every

day

2-3 times

a week

Every

day

2-3 times

a week

Giving guidance to the student teacher on

school and classroom planning

56% 24% 22% 30%

Assisting the student with classroom

management issues

68% 20% 22% 15%

Giving guidance to the student teacher on

teaching and learning

56% 24% 33% 15%

Sharing assessment information with the

student teacher

20% 32% 44% 19%

Observing the student teacher teach 80% 12% 15% 4%

Giving feedback to the student teacher on

the quality of his/her teaching

56% 12% 19% 11%

Engaging in critical reflection with the

student teacher

44% 12% 19% 4%

Discussing the student teacher’s teaching

plans

48% 16% 22% 11%

Facilitating the student teacher in trying out

alternative ways of doing things in the

classroom

56% 32% 26% 4%

Providing guidelines on how to meet State

examination requirements

8% 4% 26% 4%

Team-teaching with the student teacher 12% 24% 19% 4%

Availing of discretionary time while the

student teacher is teaching

52% 16% 26% 26%

In general, it would appear that primary teachers engage more frequently with student

teachers in various classroom practices, including observing the student teacher teach.


136

However, observation experiences could be mixed. When CTs were asked if they observe the

student and give feedback and if the student got a chance to observe the CT, the practices

varied according to schools as the following comments illustrate:

[CT rural primary school] Yes definitely; they informally observe us. It is informal.

Depends. Some students look for you some don’t. Some students ask, some don’t.

[CT urban post primary school]. I sit at the back. I would advise them to be more

forceful, to make sure they know how to get silence and tips for doing that. I show

them and tell them what to do. Hands on the table first so you can’t move when I’m

talking to you, etc.

From the point of view of cooperating teachers, it would appear that requirements for

observation were unclear for schools, due in part, to the variation in requirements from

different HEIs, as the following quote illustrates:

[CT PP urban school] We don’t get information from all the HEIs…I am going by

what the student tells me. It might be nice to have some kind of formalisation of that.

One student might say that I have to be there for the whole year whereas another

student [from a different HEI] might come in and say I don’t need to observe for the

first few weeks, depending on their subject.

We noted however that the more formal specified type of observation occurs at pre-set

periods in many programmes and usually involves some note taking and written commentary

that is part of the student’s teaching file and as such woven into reflection. In primary

programmes, our evidence suggests that observation of teaching would appear to also occur

during the period of the student’s own practice insofar as the CT typically teaches some

classes and the student observes and makes notes. Thus, this aspect of observation is more

informal, opportunistic and ad hoc.

7.8 AVAILING OF DISCRETIONARY TIME While primary teachers appear to have more opportunities to observe and be observed, how

they avail of discretionary time also appears less structured than what occurs with their post

primary counterparts, given the responsibilities of primary classrooms. In the survey data,

post primary teachers indicated that they engaged in team teaching with the student teacher

more often than primary teachers, however, the nature of this practice was not explored. It

could be interpreted as teaching the same class on separate days, with neither student teacher

nor classroom teacher meeting each other, for example. Practices among primary teachers

also varied as the following comments from different CTs illustrate:

[CT urban school] That totally depends…I would still be in the room. There were

times where I had to work away at the side of the room, but still was in earshot so if

there was anything…I’d look up and say ‘Are you all right there?’ if I felt that there

might have been anything that might need some help. . . [otherwise] I’d be bringing

children down and doing some reading with them or assessing them in their maths or

whatever.

[CT urban school] Some students need you more than others, some are more

confident and more comfortable and have kind of gotten a handle of it way quicker

than others so it kind of varies really.


137

[CT rural school] In a year 3 and year 4 are you allowed to leave the classroom? I

would always stay with the student and use the time for small group work.

[CT urban school] Week 1 I’m in the classroom all the time. After that I am in the

corridor. If I have a 4th yr student on SP, I do paperwork, planning, or take students

out for assessment.

[CT urban school] I do half and half - working on the Green Flag in school

7.9 ENGAGING IN DIALOGUE WITH THE HEI TUTOR We noted in conducting interviews with teachers nationwide how the previous nomenclature

associated with the HEI tutor such as the term ‘inspector’, ‘examiner’ or ‘college tutor’

prevailed in many instances, suggesting to us a disconnect between the aspirations of the

policy documents and the realities for schools and HEIs. Given that the concept of

partnership underpins the Teaching Council Guidelines on SP, a key set of questions

explored the experience of partnership between schools and the HEI from the cooperating

teachers’ perspective. Cooperating teachers did not appear to be as aware of communications

from the HEI, largely because information tends to be directed centrally, to the principal or

SP coordinator in the school. Deputy principals and principals spoke of invitations to HEI

events, receiving explanatory letters from the HEI in advance of placement, and thank you

letters, cards or tokens of appreciation following the completion of a placement period, and

emphasised their appreciation of these gesture for what they were. A comment from an

experienced CT illustrates how the detail of each placement might not be a major concern for

her and the sense of continuity with previous practices:

[CT] To be honest, I’m not great on reading all that probably because I’ve had so

many students over time and I know what to do.

On the occasions when the HEI tutor visits the ST, primary teachers, by virtue of the nature

of primary classrooms, have greater contact with the HEI tutor since they maintain overall

responsibility for the class compared to post primary teachers who are among a number of

CTs with whom the ST works. Because of this, communication between post primary CTs

and HEI tutors can be inconsistent. Primary teachers are more likely to declare that they

discuss the ST’s teaching with the HEI tutor and matters such as how the ST handles the class

and maintains discipline. Post primary teachers have a much lower rate of engagement with

the HEI tutor and detail of the ST’s progress is therefore not discussed (See Table 7.2 below).


138

Table 7.2 Cooperating Teachers’ views of partnership with the HEI

Primary Post primary

Agree or

strongly

agree

Disagree

or

strongly

disagree

Agree or

strongly

agree

Disagree

or

strongly

disagree

I have adequate contact with the HEI tutor

when s/he visits the student teacher on SP

52% 32% 19% 56%

I discuss the quality of the student’s

teaching with the HEI tutor

80% 8% 22% 56%

When talking to the HEI tutor, I usually

focus on the student teacher’s ability to

handle the class and maintain discipline

56% 20% 7% 56%

Qualitative data reveals the nature of the relationship between the cooperating teacher and the

HEI tutor in greater detail as the following illustrates:

Interviewer: Do you engage in conversation with the HEI tutor?

[CT large urban school] Well I always make it my business to make sure that I talk to

them but generally they would say you know ‘How are they getting on?’ So we would

have a chat either before or after on both visits and yes I would make it my business

[to engage them in conversation].

Interviewer: And what would you talk about in those conversations?

Well the thing is they will see their folder and they’ll see student teacher’s planning

and their lesson contents so they know what’s going into that and then they see

student teacher on the day but I would be able to give [the HEI tutor] a little aside

saying they’re very good for taking on any advice, everything I’ve told them they’re

able to put into practice—so things that the HEI tutor can’t see, they wouldn’t know if

student teacher is taking on board whatever the teacher said. Also I can tell [the HEI

tutor] they’re very obliging, they’re willing to help out in any way, anything you can

ask them they get stuck in, they have the initiative to get stuck in and to do it. So you

just need to tell [the HEI tutor] about the general all over things that they can’t tell in

one visit.

Cooperating teachers can also experience a sense of indignation and perhaps disrespect when

their views on the ST are not invited:

[CT rural school] Some HEI tutors don’t ask my opinion – you can have a great

lesson sometimes and not great other times, or having an off day. It’s really important

[for HEI tutors] to ask us how they are doing. And this doesn’t always happen.


139

[CT rural school] Yes, I would tend to meet the tutor and have a conversation about

the student which so far in the past year was just fine and I thought very helpful all

round but the tutor from (naming another provider) doesn’t really want to engage with

the school and we were being critical of that student who appeared to us not to be

really serious about his work – but he passed.

[CT rural school] They don’t engage it has to be said, but it varies. One HEI tutor can

be very keen to engage and hear what I had to say but not always. Very much asking

my opinion and I’ve also had the opposite. I was asked to leave the room. I felt it

wasn’t my class.

7.10 ROLE OF THE CT IN ASSESSMENT AND GRADING Evidence from our study reveals a lower inclination on the part of the cooperating teachers to

be involved with the formal assessment of student teachers’ teaching compared to their

willingness to be involved in more formative and informal assessment. However, post

primary teachers indicated a greater willingness to engage in such work (Table 7.3) despite

their comparatively very low incidence reported in Table 7.1 of observing STs teach. CT

interviewees were not keen to have a role currently in the summative assessment of student

teachers. While they are an invaluable formative support, a typical comment was, ‘they do

not wish to have anything to do with grades’. The following quote also draws attention to the

notion of professional distance and the objective judgement of an external assessor:

[CT] Well I’m there all the time and a pretty good judge so it’s important to listen to

what say the teacher thinks but I wouldn’t want to be judge and jury over the

student’s final grade or anything; that’s best left to the inspector. I think as it’s all too

cosy at times with past pupils etc and it’s difficult to be in position of passing

judgement.

On the other hand, CTs are uniquely positioned to observe STs learning to become teachers

in a range of different teaching and learning situations, as well as within the wider school

context in ways that may not be evident to the visiting HEI tutor. The following quote from a

post primary school illustrates how CTs see their role and how they might contribute to the

overall ST evaluation:

...Not the assessment, but I would like to have a discussion with the HEI tutor that

they are only seeing forty minutes of a student’s time and we are working with them

for the whole year. For them to come in and not even acknowledge that we are there

and what we are doing with this work...and that we have inside information maybe

about the student...If they are concerned about something we could maybe alleviate

that concern and say, ‘We know, we have observed them, and I wouldn’t think that is

an issue.’

Here we note the disjunction in communication that can occur and the potential for

misunderstanding in the absence of dialogue, as one post primary CT observes:

In a way, we are kind of left out...the relationship is obviously between the student

teacher and the tutor. The tutor comes into the school and leaves the school without


140

any acknowledgement or any hello or goodbye. But I have never formally met any of

the tutors.

Primary cooperating teachers were also unclear in relation to the boundaries and possible

scope for consultation with the HEI tutor, as the following remarks illustrate:

We support them but we are not their inspector. We don’t know how far to go. We

would like guidelines that are universal to all HEIs but this is unlikely. In England

and in other jobs (Nursing) we would have documents to help us.

Yet, the potential to gain a deeper understanding of the ST’s learning can be greatly enhanced

when communication flows, as described here, shedding light on diverse aspects of ST

learning, on the dialogic nature of learning between ST and CT, and ultimately developing

ST agency and self-efficacy.

When asked if they had a role in the formal assessment or grading of a student teacher’s

competence to teach, one-fifth of primary teachers agreed with this statement while the level

of agreement for post primary teachers was one-third (see Table 7.3 below). Similarly, when

asked if they would like to have such a role in formal grading or assessment of student

teachers, 36% of primary teachers agreed with the statement while 67% of post primary

teachers declared an interest. In terms of their capacity to undertake the task of grading or

assessing of student teachers’ competence to teach, just 36% of primary teachers indicated

that they felt equipped to do so in comparison with 63% of post primary teachers.

Table 7.3: Cooperating teachers’ views of assessment


Yes No Yes No

I am skilled in providing feedback to student

teachers on the quality of their teaching

75% 25% 82% 19%

I would like to a have a role in the

assessment/grading of ST’s competence to

teach.

36% 60% 67% 33%

I feel equipped to grade/assess my student

teacher’s competence to teach

36% 60% 63% 37%

Further illumination of feedback and assessment is found in the qualitative data as follows:

Interviewer: Have you ever sat in while the HEI tutor was giving a debrief to the

student teacher?

No I haven’t. Interviewer: And do you think you contribute to the student’s overall assessment?

I mean insofar as they chat with me… but I do believe that the STs should have one-

to-one time as well. I like that I can talk to the assessor [HEI tutor] but they need to

have their time as well you know because there might be things the ST wouldn’t be

comfortable saying in front of the teacher.

Interviewer: How do you think the HEI tutor sees your role?

Well to an extent we are assessing them as well, but on a much more informal way.

That’s why those little chats are important you know because we can tell [the HEI

tutor] what’s been going on in all the days that they’re not there and it does help the

student as well because you know they’re putting in so much into this and when


141

they’re only out for the two short visits, you want to really give them the best, paint

the best picture that you can. When they’re putting in so much into [SP] they really

deserve it.

When asked about the nature of feedback that the cooperating teacher gives to students,

responses included:

[CT rural school] Strategies for improvement, looking for variety, pacing of lessons,

class management.

A more progressive example comes from a teacher in an urban school who advocates co-

teaching and sharing lesson ideas with the student teacher.

[CT urban school] Students have come to me as well and said ‘Look I’m not really

sure what to do with this lesson’ and I’d say, ‘You know what, what are you trying to

cover? ‘And they will talk about and I’d say, ‘Do you want me to actually take that

lesson? ‘ and then sometimes I would just model a lesson and I’d say, ‘Right well I’m

doing this now and I want you to write down, take down as many notes as you can’

and then I’d say ‘Then the next time you can actually you have your little notes there

and you have them and you go and practice it now...There’s loads of different ideas,

here’s a few, do you want me to do some?’

7.11 FORMAL GRADING In a similar vein when asked if the HEI tutor should grade/formally assess the student

teacher’s competence to teach, 92% of primary teachers responding to the Round 2 survey

(n=52) agreed or strongly agreed with this statement while the equivalent from post primary

teachers was a little lower at 78% (see Table 7.4).

Table 7.4: Cooperating teachers’ views of their role in assessment in relation to the HEI tutor


Agree or

strongly

agree

Disagree

or

strongly

disagree

Agree or

strongly

agree

Disagree

or

strongly

disagree

Assessment and grading of the student

teacher’s performance on SP is a key focus

of the conversation with the HEI tutor

36% 44% 15% 60%

The HEI tutor welcomes my feedback on SP

76% 8% 26% 41%

I feel valued by the HEI in my role as

cooperating teacher

68% 8% 22% 48%

However, in looking at the possibility of the ST, HEI tutor and CT having a three-way

conversation about the nature of SP, the level of agreement among all teachers was similar

(primary: 76%; post primary: 78%). It would appear that assessment and grading of the


142

student teacher’s performance on SP is key focus of the conversation with the HEI tutor in a

minority of cases (primary: 36%; post primary: 15%).

When asked if they would like to have their voices better heard in the feedback and grading

process, cooperating teachers at primary level were equivocal in their responses:

[CT rural school] Yes. Although that would be adding to your own work.

[CT rural school] Fairness is an issue. Maybe not the grading but definitely an input.

[CT rural school] What I don’t like is the Inspector gives a glowing report and I

couldn’t believe it as I didn’t agree. But I wasn’t asked.

Primary teachers also expressed a stronger level of agreement with the statement that ‘the

HEI tutor welcomes my feedback on SP’ (76%) as opposed to 26% of post primary teachers

agreeing or strongly agreeing with this statement. Moreover, 68% of primary teachers agreed

or agreed strongly with the statement that they feel valued by the HEI tutor in their role as

cooperating teacher, in contrast with just 22% of post primary teachers sharing their views.

In summary, it would appear that cooperating teachers welcome dialogue with the HEI tutor

about the student teacher’s progress and are also open to the possibility of a three-way

conversation involving the student teacher. However, they believe that responsibility for the

formal grading of the student should rest with the HEI tutor.

7.12 COOPERATING TEACHERS’ VIEWS OF HOW THEY SEE THEMSELVES PROFESSIONALLY The emergence of the cooperating teacher’s professional identity and agency was explored in

the focus group interviews and also captured in a set of questions on the survey instrument in

Round 2 (n=52). An example from a post primary cooperating teacher working in a more

specialised programme illustrates the closeness of the relationship between her and the HEI,

her understanding of the culture of the institution in relation to assessment, and how her

identity as a cooperating teacher relates to her own experiences as a undergraduate:

[CT urban post primary] I was fine with it as my own experience from [names HEI]

and could really understand where they were coming from. I knew all the examiners,

the people who were coming in to assess them, and I knew I could help them address

the issues as they arose. I was really excited about doing it as I felt I wasn’t too far

gone from it.

In a small number of cases, cooperating teachers are proactive and are inspired by the model

of mentoring that has emerged from the NIPT and Droichead process, others feel constrained

by the absence of clear definitions of their role as the following quote illustrates:

[CT urban, primary]. We don’t get opportunities to talk about our students. If

feedback from cooperating teachers was a part of the structure, part of the job, then

you would feel ok doing it. At the moment if you gave feedback the student might say

‘you are not my tutor’.

A tension also exists between the frequency or depth of observation that a cooperating

teacher experiences in observing the same student teacher for an extended period, in

comparison to the experiences of a HEI tutor who may not appear to spend as much time in

the classroom, but who can reference what s/he observes against a much larger pool of

student teachers observed over the course of the week, placement block or year, as evidenced

in the comments here:


143

[CT urban, primary] The tutor visit is unrealistic, a big show, and we see them every

day. I see them every day but I would not be confident to mark them as we all have

different standards as teachers – could be conflicting.

Notwithstanding the challenges inherent in the role of the cooperating teacher, Table 7.5

illustrates responses to the survey questions which generally reveal positive views of the role.

Overall, cooperating teachers in both sectors expressed a strong level of agreement with

statements such as ‘Being a cooperating teacher has benefitted me professionally’ (73%) and

‘I feel empowered to influence how student teachers will develop’ (67%). The extent to

which teachers saw the Teaching Council Guidelines as helpful to them professionally was

less strong (29%) with over half of respondents maintaining a neutral position on this but

only about half had claimed awareness of the Guidelines in the first place (see above). Just

over two-thirds (67%) of teachers indicated that they needed professional development on SP

to enhance their role as a cooperating teacher and 56% indicated that the HEI was best placed

to provide this. In addition, cooperating teachers indicated overwhelmingly (89%) that SP

was a positive experience for student teachers in their classroom (Table 4). Moreover, almost

three-quarters (73%) stated that they were well-placed to support the student teacher as s/he

learns to teach. Finally, cooperating teachers strongly indicated (83%) that SP was a positive

experience for them as cooperating teachers.

Table 7.5: Primary and post primary teachers’ views of themselves as cooperating teachers


Agree or

strongly

agree

Disagree

or

strongly

disagree

Agree or

strongly

agree

Disagree

or

strongly

disagree

Being a cooperating teacher has benefitted

me professionally

76% 4% 70% 7%

I feel empowered to influence how student

teachers will develop

80% 4% 56% 4%

The Teaching Council Guidelines on SP are

very helpful to me professionally

36% 12% 22% 19%

I need professional development on SP to

enhance my role as a cooperating teacher

60% 24% 74% 7%

The HEI is best placed to provide

professional development on SP

64% 4% 44% 17%

I am well placed to support the student

teacher as s/he learns to teach

84% 4% 63% 11%

SP is a positive experience student teachers

in my classroom

92% 0% 85% 4%

SP is a positive experience for me as a

cooperating teacher

84% 0% 82% 7%

The professional satisfaction experienced from taking a student teacher emerged in Round 1

of the data gathering and is illustrated in the comments below:


144

[CT] I’m 100% for taking a student, I get huge benefit from it, I’m hearing the young

stuff, the new technology, it is a two-way process for me, it keeps me young and

focused, it is a refresher course for me each year taking a student.

[CT] It is always good to reflect on practice, you observe them (the students) but this

allows you to reflect on your own practice, you see a lot more in the classroom; you

can spend extra time with certain children ….

These two quotes from two different cooperating teachers in two different settings point to

the reciprocity of the learning relationship and benefit accruing to the cooperating teacher

from being involved in SP. Further positive comments emerged from teachers in Round 2.

[CT primary] I generally love taking students and I suppose as I’ve gotten older and

more experienced in my teaching, I have treated it kind of differently. So at the start I

would have let them just come in and go about their business and I would have given

them feedback and stuff like that, but not as much to the extent as I do now. Like

now, I’m ready when they come in for their observation day…I do a lot more team

teaching as well.

There’s not me saying ‘I’m a teacher this is the way it’s done’ at all. I just say

‘Sometimes I find this works’ or whatever but it’s all a very positive thing and I’ve

definitely gotten positive feedback from the students and I know this whole thing is a

result of me changing my style as well…like I’m 11 years out now so I’m definitely

not the same teacher I was in year one.

Interviewer: What are the benefits to you professionally from being a co-operating

teacher?

Professionally . . . well I just get enjoyment because I feel like I’m helping another

teacher who’s going out into the world to teach so many different classes. I just feel

like I’m imparting my knowledge, skills and expertise. I feel if I was back at day one

that they would have helped me if I had them—so I’m really just trying to like give

them as much help as possible to set them up.

Interviewer: And you think this is a benefit to the life of the school as well?

Definitely yes, because you’re really promoting—as we say to the kids—learning

from each other—but teachers can learn from each other as well.

[CT post primary] We pick up things from the students as well, so it’s not all one way.

7.13 FUTURE CPD FOR THE ROLE OF THE CT Our evidence shows that the preparation of the CT for the role is unsurprisingly very varied

for a number of reasons. One reason is that not all CTs are located within easy distance of the

HEI where the ST is studying. Participating schools/CTs are spread across the entire country

and, depending on the programme in question and the kind of SP the student is engaged in, it

may be that only one CT in a school is involved in SP and that the school itself has no

particular connection with any HEI. On the other hand, very many schools, as noted above,

have a long tradition of involvement with their local HEI and so many CTs have had some


145

experience of STs being in their schools and have experience of supporting them. However,

for all CTs the new arrangements have brought new requirements, expectations and

challenges.

When asked in open-ended written response what type of professional development might be

available to cooperating teachers, almost all respondents stated that there was none, or none

that they were aware of. The exception to this was one respondent who mentioned the PDST.

In relation to identifying the specific professional development opportunities that might be

required of for SP, cooperating teachers were forthcoming with ideas. Responses ranged from

the importance of the physical proximity or convenience of CPD—such as it being provided

locally—to having a simple conversation about the process with a HEI. Other suggestions

were more prescriptive:

Guidance and clarity around the roles and expectations of the CT;

Understanding the requirements of the HEI for the student;

How to give constructive or formative feedback in a professional manner;

How to liaise with the HEI and establish greater communication between the

cooperating teacher and HEI tutor.

These suggestions could usefully serve as a basis for CPD for CTs.

When asked to specify two things cooperating teachers felt that they are best placed to do and

two things they felt that the HEI Tutor was best placed to do, the responses were most

constructive and pointed to unique but complementary areas of expertise.

A content analysis of comments from the cooperating teachers revealed that the role they felt

best served was to “provide guidance and support to the student teacher in general”.

Following that, other aspects that they felt they could provide were: assistance with

classroom management, in real time; assistance with planning, pacing and content of lessons;

providing or advising on resources and materials; developing the pupil and student teacher

relationship, advising on pupil assessment, and informing the student teacher about various

school policies including discipline procedures.

In contrast, the aspect that cooperating teachers identified as the area that HEI tutors were

best placed to provide was overwhelmingly identified as “to assess the student teacher”.

More specifically, this included assessment of the student teacher’s use of different

methodologies and pedagogies in class, as well as individual aspects of the student teacher’s

teaching such as classroom management, classroom presence, engagement, movement, voice

projection, professional conduct and professionalism—according to the Teaching Council

guidelines, and the student’s progress over time. The extent to which the cooperating teacher

and HEI tutor might collaborate or consult each other on the student teacher’s progress was

articulated in a just three instances where it was suggested that the HEI tutor might seek

advice from the CT ‘on how the student teacher got on’, ‘meet for proper feedback with the

cooperating teacher’; and ‘give the cooperating teacher clear expectations so that the CT can

support the ST’. Each of these examples go some way towards building the dialogue between

the CT and the HEI tutor, although there is a sense that STs might be excluded from these

conversations. One respondent suggested that the HEI tutor should “enter and leave the

school incognito”.

7.14 BENEFITS OF EXTENDED PERIOD OF SCHOOL PLACEMENT INCLUDING THE 10-WEEK

BLOCK


146

As referred to earlier in this chapter, because of the differing interpretations and models of

placement in each of the HEIs (including those not selected for a more focused approach as a

case study within this report), interpretations of the ‘10-week block’ vary considerably

among the HEIs, and consequently at school level. Given that teachers generally appear to be

unaware of the Teaching Council guidelines, and that their interpretation of them is filtered

through the HEIs, schools respond to whatever configuration is communicated either through

the HEI itself or by the student seeking a placement. That said, at primary level there was a

universal perception that a 10 week block was too long as the following quotes illustrate:

Now I didn’t experience that, but there were 10 week blocks in this school and I

personally think that’s too long.

Even just from informally asking the teachers I’ve said, ‘How’s that going?’ and they

all felt it was a bit too long. So nearly the guts of a term . . .

There was a sense, too, of the potentially disruptive nature of a block from one CT who

remarked that ‘blocks can have a big impact on class routine and management’, which stands

in contrast to conceptualisations of co-teaching or team teaching model and their potential

benefits for pupil learning. However, in some instances, the model proposed by the HEI

appeared to be more amenable to primary teachers, while still maintaining the extent of the

placement:

Nobody can give up a class for 10 weeks—that’s too long but the [HEI – primary]

students don’t do this anymore, at least our two students this year didn’t –they had 5

weeks in one classroom and then 5 in another; it worked ok

In a small number of cases, senior staff in the school expressed concern about issues of

confidentiality if a student teacher were to spend up to 10 weeks in a school, including the

conversations in the staffroom.

[Principal, urban school] The other problem that we tend to have is the staff room and

we put a great deal of emphasis on professionalism and ethics and matters of

confidentiality since nearly always the students are pretty local so they end up being

privy to all kinds of conversations and information about pupils and families that can

be very sensitive so I put a lot of emphasis on making sure they know the protocol

about these kinds of issues.

The issue of confidentiality was also raised in relation to shorter blocks of placement, for

example in SEN settings, where a student teacher might spend time in their local school and

where sensitivities could arise in relation to local knowledge of a family situation.

In contrast, post primary teachers who observe the various configurations from the larger

number of HEIs associated with post primary programmes were more decisive in their views

in relation to the flow of the year, as was evidenced in the focus group interviews and in

open-ended responses on the survey instrument, as the following quote illustrates:

[CT post primary] Continuous to me would be a massive benefit. To be in school for

the full year would be ideal. It would be such a support to have the same person for a

year.

In the survey, two-thirds of the post primary respondents favoured a continuous, year-long

model, whether that was in the form of a day a week (even if only one class was taught and

the rest observed), to two days a week, to being in school for five days a week (even if only

teaching one class per day), followed by a gradual building up of responsibility over the


147

course of the year. Key areas of learning outlined by post primary CTs in their justifications

for a longer placement period were identified as follows: the capacity of the ST to:

develop confidence;

build expertise in classroom management;

be considered as a member of staff by colleagues and students in the school;

build a rapport with students;

experience continuity in teaching;

develop a sense of what school life was like over the course of the year;

understand ‘real teaching’.

The question of how the student teacher might experience ‘real teaching’ is the crucial one

here as it should include experiences that extent of the school day, week, month, or year as

well as all its variations, opportunities and professional demands.

7.14 DEPUTY PRINCIPALS’ AND PRINCIPALS’ VIEWS OF SP While a small number of deputy principals and principals participated in the focus group and

in the cooperating teacher questionnaires—particularly if they served a coordinating role for

SP in the school or facilitated ST in their own classrooms, a separate survey was conducted

with DPs and Principals (n=18) in post primary schools to ascertain their views. In this

survey, the respondent gender was nearly exactly balanced with the majority (61%) holding

posts as principals and just over a quarter (28%) in DP roles. These were all experienced

professionals with almost three-quarters (72%) having over 21 years experience and

approximately 17 years of facilitating student teacher school placements. Their schools were

distributed across mainly mixed, non-disadvantaged, urban, suburban and rural schools in the

four provinces.

The majority of respondents (83%) indicated that they were aware of the Teaching Council

Guidelines for SP. The average number of student teachers hosted by their school in the last

year was approximately six. There was a wide range from 2 to 20 student teachers, with 50%

of responses being between 3 and 11 student teachers. This data concurs with the experiences

of post primary teachers as described earlier and draws attention to the complexity of

accommodating STs from a wide range of HEIs. The majority of respondents (61%)

indicated that they did not have a written policy on school placement but in an equal measure,

stated that they had discussed SP in a staff meeting.

Half of the respondents (50%) indicated that they had discussed the new arrangements with a

local HEI although they did not have a partnership with a local HEI or a formal agreement,

such as an MoU/A with them, as stated in 61% of cases. However, the majority of

respondents (61%) indicated that none of their teachers had attended an information meeting

at a local HEI. This data concurs with our findings from the CT perspective and reiterates the

point that information about SP can be held centrally in a school but not always

communicated to teachers on the ground.

In terms of screening ST for placement in their schools, the vast majority of respondents

(89%) indicated that they did interviews with prospective student teachers before accepting

them and all (100%) indicated that they either agreed or strongly agreed that they like to have


148

a say in who comes to their school on placement. From our qualitative data, we are aware that

some schools post information for prospective STs on their school website. Similarly, the

majority of respondents (78%) indicated that they either disagreed or strongly disagreed that

HEIs should be allowed to allocate students for school placements. Elsewhere in this report

we describe the challenges for STs in securing placements in schools and the most unlikely

scenario of being accepted on their first attempts. These statistics underline the fact that

Principals and DPs in post primary schools serve as gatekeepers of the professional standards

of teaching for their schools, even for those starting out in the professional programme.

A number of questions addressed views on the Teaching Council Guidelines in terms of their

usefulness and the majority (67%) agreed or strongly agreed that they were. Similarly, almost

three-quarters (73%) indicated that the expectations for CTs in the guidelines were

reasonable. Furthermore, a very high proportion (89%) of principals and DPs agreed or

strongly agreed that their teachers were well placed to be cooperating teachers, reflecting a

strong belief in the professional capacity of their teaching colleagues.

In responding to questions about the teachers in their schools, the principals and deputy

principals were almost unanimous (95%) in their views that student teachers should have the

opportunity to observe teachers teach, that their teachers were willing to support student

teachers on placement and that their teachers were well placed to give guidance to student

teachers, including on teaching and learning. They were slightly less likely to agree or

strongly agree (78%) with the statement that their teachers had the necessary skills to offer

feedback to student teachers about their performance. From our interview data we learned

how in one setting, a member of the leadership team devised a system for CTs to enable

observation in their classrooms which has been moderately successful.

Questions that related specifically to student teachers sought views from principals and DPs

on whether STs should participate fully in the life of the school. No respondents disagreed

that they should have this opportunity. They also showed a high level of agreement (94%)

with the statement that STs should begin their SP with a period of classroom observation.

Moreover, the vast majority of respondents (83%) indicated that they either agreed or

strongly agreed that student teachers should be in for most week days throughout the year. As

one DP observed in an individual interview: ‘They get a better sense of the reality of being in

school over a year. They get a better sense of the classroom’. This DP also noted the

pressures that some STs can be faced with in trying fit all the SP requirements into a fixed

block and having no leeway when additional school or university demands present

themselves. Likewise, Principals and DPs also showed a high level of agreement (84%) with

the statement that STs should get experience of both junior and senior cycles, and that such

learning experiences should occur in more than one school. To a greater degree than their

counterparts teaching in classrooms however, the vast majority of principals and DPs (89%)

indicated that they either agreed or strongly agreed that student teachers co-teaching with the

class teacher was a good idea. One DP expanded on this point in an interview in drawing

attention to the professional isolation that teachers can experience:

[DP] You are on your own for the bulk of your day. It’s still solitary…and on that

basis it’s really important to have people coming in to sit and observe which is

difficult, and something I would not have been used to. But the people [STs] coming

in now to sit in your class is not such an issue as people are increasingly used to it.


149

A final set of questions explored the concept of partnership with HEIs and schools from the

principals’ and DPs’ perspectives and this is illustrated in Table 7.6 below. Here, half of the

respondents were of the view that the HEI communicated information clearly and in a timely

manner. The majority of respondents (72%) indicated that they either agreed or strongly

agreed that they were familiar with HEI requirements for student placement each year. In an

individual interview, one postholder explained how she had attended information sessions

with a number of HEIs:

[CT/postholder]: One (HEI) was asking the school become an ‘academy school’ for

the HEI but it would mean that we would take only their students and we wouldn’t do

that. There is a range of expertise among all of the HEIs and we did not want to go

with one.

Just over two-thirds of respondents (67%) indicated that they either agreed or strongly agreed

that they had discussed the quality of a student teacher’s work with the HEI tutor. Whereas

earlier in this chapter we noted that CTs showed less interest in being involved in formal

grading of students, almost three-quarters (72%) of principals and DPs (n=18)indicated that

CTs should be involved in this dimension. The question of affording CTs’ opportunities to

contribute to student feedback was also discussed in focus group interviews. However, from a

management perspective, imposing other document requirements on CTs could be

problematic, as one interviewee highlighted:

[CT]: It would be useful to have a template, or something you could fill in on a ST

and share with the HEI tutor.

Interviewer: Would you like this to be a mandatory aspect of your work, to formalise

the arrangement?

[CT] (laughs) Wouldn’t like to see it as mandatory! Then we would complain about

workload!

In recognising the partnership dimension of SP, the majority of respondents (67%) indicated

that they either agreed or strongly agreed that the HEI tutor valued teacher feedback on

student teachers. However, they indicated a lower level of certainty (44%) regarding whether

their own opinions were taken into account when devising HEI’s school placement

requirements.

The final set of questions point to a very positive view of SP by principals and DPs in

relation to the professional benefits for their colleagues in the classroom (89%), and for STs

in their schools (89%). As one DP remarked in an interview:

[DP] The students bring a vibrancy and an energy to the place. They revitalise the

place and we are very fortunate that staff are willing to engage with student teachers.

Without the staff cooperation it simply wouldn’t happen.

However, the need for professional development for CTs is strongly underlined by 94% of

respondents, where the vast majority (89%) recognise that the HEI should provide

professional development, although just 67% agree or strongly agree with the statement that

the HEI is best placed to do so. Clearly, there are resource implications in providing CPD for

schools that enhances and builds the partnership between schools and HEIs. Finally, in

looking at the experience as a whole, the almost three-quarters of respondents (72%)


150

indicated that they either agreed or strongly agreed that being involved in school placement

was a positive experience for them as a principal working with their local HEI.

Table 7.6: Partnership between HEIs and Schools and Involvement of Staff in SP

Agree or

strongly agree

The HEI communicates all information in a clear and timely manner 50%

I am familiar with the requirements of the HEI for ST during SP each

year

72%

I discuss the quality of the student’s teaching with the HEI tutor 67%

Teachers should be involved in the assessment and grading of the ST’s

performance on SP

72%

The HEI tutor values teacher feedback on student teachers on SP 67%

My opinion is taken into consideration by the HEI in devising SP

requirements for STs

44%

Being involved in SP has benefitted teachers professionally 89%

The Teaching Council Guidelines on SP are helpful to teachers at a

professional level

73%

There is a need for professional development on SP for teachers

involved as cooperating teachers

94%

The HEI is best placed to provide the necessary professional

development for schools in supporting student teachers on SP

67%

Professional development opportunities should be provided by the HEI

to enhance the schools’ role in supporting STs

89%

Generally speaking SP is a positive experience for STs in my school 89%

Generally speaking, SP is a positive experience for me as a principal

working with my local HEI

72%

Accommodating STs seeking placements before the start of the school year and matching

them with supportive CTs in the relevant subject areas presents many logistical issues for

post primary schools. Our experience from interviews with those in leadership and

management posts in schools is that this work can be streamlined and maximised for the

benefit of the school when it is coordinated by an individual with responsibility for this

work—typically the deputy principal in post primary schools who may liaise with several

HEIs and manage timetables and the day to day teacher supply in schools. Similarly, we are

aware of some schools (non-fee paying) where management allows scope for CTs to act in a

mentoring role as part of their overall workload, as the following DP illustrates:

[DP]: They get one period off per week if they act as a CT. And we would make sure

that this period is called a mentor period and we would ensure this coincided with free

time for the student, so they can sit down and plan and get feedback, and discuss how

things are developing.


151

7.15 CONCLUSION The majority of CTs are not aware of the detail of the Teaching Council guidelines,

nor of formal details of partnership arrangements with the HEIs.

Despite a lack of awareness of formal arrangements, the majority of teachers (80% at

primary and 89% at post primary) indicated that they have a say in whether or not

they host a student teacher in their class.

CTs have not experienced CPD for their role, but they believe that they have the

expertise to act as CTs. Those in leadership positions in schools concur strongly with

this view. Moreover, all believe that HEIs are best placed to provide such CPD.

CTs have had mixed experiences with HEI tutors and would welcome clarity on their

own role vis-à-vis the ST’s progress, how they can complement the work of the HEI

tutor, and arrangements for dialogue with the HEI tutor during visits.

The majority of CTs believe they can support STs in a general way, offer advice on

classroom management, resources, lesson planning and relationships with

students/pupils. However, they are less eager to be involved in formal grading of the

ST’s progress.

In terms of extended placements, primary CTs are generally not in favour of the 10-

week block as it is viewed as ceding control of the class for almost a full term.

Models of team teaching or co-teaching exist only in a very small number of cases.

For post primary teachers, a block placement is considered restrictive compared to the

developmental process and valuable learning that can occur over the course of a year,

especially if this is a graduated experience where responsibilities are added and

supported incrementally.

On balance, the vast majority of CTs in both sectors, and their school leaders, believe

that SP is a rewarding experience that benefits them professionally. Moreover, they

strongly believe that the experience is a positive one for student teachers in their

schools.


152

CHAPTER 8: STUDENT TEACHER PERSPECTIVES ON SP

8.1 INTRODUCTION Research on learning and professional learning in particular shows that knowledge and

competence are always situated, context-dependent and collaborative. School placement

allows STs participate in the authentic, actual settings where professional competence is

demonstrated and shared. Whatever the professional learning setting available to the STs, SP

powerfully impacts that learning as shown in Chapter Two (e.g. Sjoer & Meierink, 2015;

Furlong and Maynard, 1995; Waldron, 2014, 37) and confirmed by our evidence from STs

themselves in this chapter.

SP happens across the range of settings in our study: urban and rural schools, single sex and

co-educational schools, multi-grade and single class situations, DEIS schools, Special

Schools and Gaelscoileanna and Scoileanna Gaeltachta. For STs, SP is about learning skills

and competencies, developing personal, productive and professional working relationships

with colleagues. Becoming a teacher is transformational: it is about developing a personal

and professional identity. The success of SP depends on the ‘affordance’ of partner schools,

on school principals, co-operating teachers (CTs) and HEI tutors and SP Directors. This

chapter focuses specifically on the student teachers’ experience of SP. It has five main

themes:

Integration of Theory and Practice, Self-Efficacy, Emotionality

Extended SP: Belonging and Contributing to the life of the School

Observing, Being Observed and Being Assessed

Evaluating and Reflecting

Intensity and Pressure of Workload

8.2 INTEGRATION OF THEORY & PRACTICE, SELF-EFFICACY, EMOTIONALITY We start this section with a telling story from an interview with a post-primary ST that speaks

to how SP is the vehicle for the integration of theory and practice and for empowering

learners:

…a couple of weeks ago was the first dawning of the day where I actually could see

the value of what I thought was time-wasting lectures in the background coming into

action actually in front of me…this idea of giving the students ‘ownership of the

learning’ that we heard about so much. I have a student … she can be awfully

disruptive. I took a chance and gave her the responsibility during the week for

minding rock samples … she comes into my class now and she sits as quiet as a

mouse, she is volunteering to help, she is telling everyone to ‘Shut up and listen will

ye!’ …she has been an absolute gem for me and I have not a bad word to say …I

made a deal with her with the rocks…The same girl is only allowed in to school three

days per week for a half day, she is very troublesome. And she wouldn’t flinch in my

room when I am there …When you develop the relationship the rest will fall into

place (2017).

Our student teacher interview data is redolent with such tales of accomplishment: STs

perceive themselves as growing in expertise and competence. The heading of this section


153

captures the feelings conveyed by all our ST participants. SP is without doubt the most

significant and positive experience of one’s ITE experience. The vast majority reported being

confident and competent about their SP and feeling well prepared for it (Table 8.1) while the

vast majority also agreed SP was a positive experience for them (Table 8.2). Their feelings of

self-efficacy stem from knowing the procedures and being able to plan ahead and being

supported professionally by their HEI tutors and CTs as claimed by the vast majority (Tables

8.1 and 8.2). The vast majority for instance were aware of the procedures for securing their

SP, notwithstanding some of the associated problems. SP Handbooks and guidelines provide

important support for students. The HEI Handbooks contain information on orientation to

teaching and SP, schemes of work template, outline lesson plans, areas of observation,

guidance on assessment of learners and feedback to ST and possible structures for post lesson

discussions.

Table 8.1: Knowing Procedures and Feeling Confident

% saying Yes PrimR1(R2) PostPrimR1(R2) Total R1(R2)

I feel confident and

competent about my SP

87 79 83

I felt well prepared for

being on SP

78 (71) 73 (65) 76 (69)

I knew the procedure

for acquiring SP

85 (100) 91 (98) 88 (95)

I received a HB from

my HEI that helped me

know the requirements

of SP

90 (85) 78 (93) 84 (88)

Table 8.2: Experiences and Perspectives about Support

% Agreeing PrimR1(R2) PostPrimR1(R2) Total R1(R2)

SP is a positive

experience for me

87 (81) 86 (80) 86 (80)

The guidelines from

my HEI are helpful

94 68 80

My HEI tutor supports

me professionally

92 (82) 78 (80) 84 (81)

My CT supports me

professionally

77 (91) 85 (88) 81 (90)

I engage in other

aspects of school life

besides class teaching,

e.g. sports events,

drama/musicals

41 (85) 77 (85) 60 (85)

I feel I contribute to the

life of the school

83 (92) 83 (75) 83 (85)


154

Our interviews with STs provided very many examples of how SP had fostered their

development. What came across time and time again was how their professional growth is

also suffused with the emotionality of that learning. There is the intensity of struggle to move

forward and gain expertise but there is also the thrill of success and a sense of achievement.

One example from a final year post-primary student, who felt she had won round her class,

demonstrates the point very well:

…last year I was completely out of my depth and I got along most of the time at

school but there were a lot of…very challenging behaviours that I hadn’t expected

because I was in a very privileged school …there were fellas down on the floor doing

push-ups and everything, complete disregard for the fact that there was even a teacher

in the classroom. And then one day one of the students started an argument with

another one in the class based on facts in the book…their nationality was being

insulted by the facts. … I said to him, ‘I understand where you’re coming from but

you have to accept that no matter what country you come from, no matter where you

are there is going to be a good side and a bad side and the bad side of this fact is that

this happens and that this occurs.’ they had put me through so much trouble that year

between September to the middle of January… I had had year head meetings and

class tutor meetings, I had detentions, whole class detentions and everything and I

would come out of the classes some days and I would just go into the staffroom and

cry. Because they had been so disruptive, they had been throwing things around at

me … And then after that [incident] they were completely on my side and it was,

‘Why are you arguing with her, she’s the teacher, let’s just get on with this’ kind of

attitude and they completely embodied everything that I had hoped that they would

and by the end of it… I was heartbroken having to leave them… they realised that I

was on the same page as them and that I was on their side …by the end of it they were

actually really engaged in the tasks that we were setting and they were engaged in

what we were learning and we did project work and presentations and everything and

they did fantastic work, they did so much work for it and really got a lot of value out

of it, they were able to critique each other in a positive way (2017).

We chose this particular example (and the earlier one) because for STs managing the class is

a major concern and featured strongly in their accounts of their experience on SP. This is

completely in line with the literature on the experience of the ST on SP insofar as classroom

management, especially the management of pupil behaviour is often an overwhelming

concern for the ST and even the beginner teacher (e.g Reupert and Woodcock, 2010). Again

the majority, regardless of sector, reported getting assistance on this from their CT, their HEI

tutor and also, interestingly, from their peers (Table 8.3). In sum, our evidence supports the

claim that SP is the space where theory and practice meet for students, where skills are

honed, where idealism and desire for teaching gain expression and are revitalised, and where

self-belief in their capability is affirmed.

8.3 EXTENDED SP: BELONGING AND CONTRIBUTING TO THE LIFE OF THE SCHOOL We probed the experience of the extended SP mostly in interviews and the second round of

fieldwork also pursued comparisons between the 10-week block SP and the continuous SP

whereby STs are in school say for 3 days per week for the year. Of course students can only

comment on their own experience but the views are helpful in understanding the different

opportunities afforded in both contexts.


155

The extended SP, whether 10-week block or continuous throughout the year, offers a range of

positives, which can be summed up as offering an authentic experience of being a teacher and

the opportunity to get to know pupils. As one PME primary student commented, ‘the 10

weeks in the one school allowed me feel part of the furniture, I felt I was really part of

everything’. Understandably STs need to experience themselves as genuine teachers with

responsibility for their students’ learning over a period of time; they need time to see the

impact of their teaching on pupils and it is clear from their responses that the major benefit of

the extended SP is seeing at first hand the impact and influence they have on children’s

learning and their own learning. They talked about the importance of ‘feeling and looking

like a real teacher’ and ‘being part of the school community’. Of note regarding the latter is

that Table 8.2 shows an increase over the period of the study to their participation in the

broader life of the school. Above all, they were keen to see themselves as ‘working’ in the

school. The following quotes from various STs across the different programmes demonstrate

their enthusiasm for the more extended SP:

You are there all the time …block is better (than the previous shorter SPs)… you are

there from once students came back in September so they think you are the teacher;

they don’t know…the kids think this is my teacher for the year.

Another teacher in the school asked to sit in on my class…I felt like I am contributing

something …relationships of equality can develop when you see people so

regularly…

Pedagogically, STs felt they benefited because they became aware over the longer SP of

children’s needs, of the complexity of teaching and the need to be able to address the

diversity of needs. The depth afforded by this experience is contrasted, by some, with the

shorter SPs of their previous years:

Block a lot better, you get to know the children, the staffroom etc., you develop a

more realistic relationship with school life (Student Teacher, Year 4 primary, 2017).

I think last year having placement on Mondays and Fridays was so difficult because it

felt like you were in the school and Friday was far away and the school had changed

so much whereas this year you have that continuous idea of what’s going on in the

school, you get more classes, you get more time with the students and you get to

know them a little bit better (PP ST 2017).

Some PP and primary STs mentioned how in their second PME year they are treated and

behave more like real teachers in the school and like other research conducted on STs on

‘teaching practice’ in the past (Hall et al, 2012) are pleased to pass as ‘the real teacher’ as

opposed to their actual status of student teacher:

Because I have a year’s worth of experience and we’re given the opportunity to act in

the school as, I suppose, actual teachers as opposed to the student teachers who come

in on a Monday and a Friday. We have more of a presence. Like last year it was

extremely obvious that I was the student teacher and I had the students play to that

whereas this year I’m in the school three days a week. They don’t even realise that

I’m not there on a Monday and a Friday, they just think I’m always there, but that’s it.


156

I’m their teacher and I have one class that I see four times a week and I’m their

teacher for that subject. So, it’s just more continuity (2017).

Being trusted to assume control of the class and ‘get on with it’ is facilitated by the extended

SP which students very much appreciate. This was especially the sentiment expressed by

PME2 STs, regardless of sector, as they compared and contrasted their year one and year two

experience in interviews. Now in year two they appear to enjoy the freedom extended to them

by the CT and are quite confident in their ability to teach. In their minds even teachers

change towards them seeing them more as equals:

As a second year they look to you as if you’re more experienced, they give you more

autonomy within the class then and they know that you have the experience and they

know that you are well able to, number one manage the class, and number two, go

through the material effectively. And ensure all students have access to that

material…(2017).

One PME2 primary student reported filling in for a teacher who was ill and the Principal

failed to secure a substitute teacher for two days. She interpreted this as a measure of her

competence and the professional regard in which she was held by the school. Such accounts

were not unusual especially in our second round of interviewing when the problem of teacher

supply had become more common.

Another advantage of the extended period in school is the opportunity to participate in whole-

school events and engage in activities across the school. This was highly valued by all

students, again conferring feelings of belonging and a sense of making a contribution to the

life of the school:

On the block placement, the 10-week block, you get to work in other areas of the

school other than my classroom which was really good. I was involved in staff

meetings, I was involved in staff decisions, I was involved in rotas for trips…being

involved in the school community like that was really, it gave you a sense and a place

…(2017).

8.4 CONTINUOUS AND BLOCK COMPARED Overall, STs felt that continuous SP offered rich opportunities for professional learning over

and above a block SP. The main word used is ‘realistic’ and the main message would appear

to be commitment and investment in the school and class when one is placed there for a year

rather than a block of 10 weeks. Students spoke of seeing all the elements of school life from

the preparation of the Christmas Nativity Play to the excitement of Sports Days and from the

preparation of the mock and real exams through to the mounting of Transition Year events.

The following are illustrative:

You can get so much more invested in the school because if you start getting involved

in extracurricular, say like hurling or something, if you’re on a 10 week block they

might have the semi-final or something the week after you finish and you’d be raging

you missed it. Or just missing school events like if they had a rag day or something

like that (2017).

And on your block as well you wouldn’t have time to actually reflect on what you’re

doing and implement any changes as it’s not long enough (2017).


157

It gives you a reality check of what real school life is actually like. And it has

actually made some people realise early last year – this is, or this is not for me …a lot

left last year (2017).

On continuous SP …you could be less prone to a burnout …(2017).

STs did not cite any negatives about continuous SP.

We can conclude that firstly STs appreciated the opportunity to have an extended placement

and believed that their learning developed considerably as a result. That is the main message

from this section. It appears that STs on the continuous SP perceive it as less intensive than

their counterparts experience on the 10-week block placement. However, SP is, in general,

perceived to be financially expensive and we discuss that later in the chapter.

8.5 OBSERVING, BEING OBSERVED AND BEING ASSESSED

8.5.1 OBSERVATION AND CTS All of the HEI case study providers recommend that each SP is preceded by a period of

observation and classroom assisting so that the ST has the opportunity to become familiar

with individual students, class routines, and classroom management approaches prior to

beginning teaching responsibilities. STs themselves overwhelmingly support this practice.

Table 8.3 shows that absolutely all primary students and the vast majority of post-primary

students agree that it’s a good idea to have a period of observation in their SP class. The vast

majority of primary STs also believe that it’s a good idea to team teach with their CT. The

corresponding statistic for post-primary STs is significantly lower at 43%. Having the

opportunity team teach with another person shows the similar sectoral differences.

Observation is valued and cultivates a friendly and supportive professional relationship with

their CT. One ST commented on the difference between observation at different points in the

process, how initially it is formal and the ST is not interacting with learners as they observe

but once they start to teach the class themselves they can benefit from observing more

actively through participating and helping as the CT teaches the class. Students appreciated

this opportunity:

I think there’s a different feel to the observation at the start of the year, and the

observation you do after you have the class by yourself when you’re in the same

class. So the start of the year you’re at the back, you’re observing, you’re the green

horse in their eyes. And you’re just looking at the teaching, but you’re not really too

much involved…Then when you’ve taught the class and you’ve got a good

relationship with the teacher, I found even coming into the class when you’re not

taking them, you can be part of the class. And they’ll bounce suggestions off you or,

if someone is struggling they’ll ask you to help them out …(ST, 2017).

The experience of observation varied from school to school yet a significant percentage of

STs outlined the value of observing experienced teachers teach but also commented on how


158

receptive some teachers were to being observed. Some teachers, in primary and post-primary

schools invited STs to come and observe certain lessons that they thought they would benefit

from:

…we had 4 weeks before we ever started teaching to do observation. We had ‘strand

work’ was what it was called; basically different curricular areas like special

education needs within the school… So that eased us into it all right but it just was

daunting at the start to be kind of dropped in (PrimST,2017).

I found that with two of my co-operating teachers, that I could just walk into their

class one day unannounced …but I could just do that, and they’d welcome me

in…(PP ST, 2017).

Last year, the school I was in, they were great, teachers would just pop into the

staffroom and say, are you free, come on in, see what I’m doing – it was great (Prim

ST, 2017).

As we explained at some length in Chapter Five, the opportunity to observe is not available to

all in equal measure, it depends very much on the willingness of individual teachers to be

observed by students. In some schools, experienced teachers would not afford STs

opportunities for observation and it seemed to be a school-level choice in a minority of cases:

I did say, look, can I sit in ……she said no, she was too nervous… I just would have

appreciated it (2017).

… some other teachers didn’t really want me there, so I was like, that’s fine, it’s OK,

I don’t want to affect your classroom (2017).

At the start of the year actually the principal did say …some of the teachers don’t like

new fresh teachers coming in and telling them about all these new methodologies, you

know, teaching them. And I said ‘Oh, well I wouldn’t go preaching or anything

anyway.’ I wouldn’t be like that. But I think it just goes to show sometimes there are

certain teachers who just feel like they don’t want you sitting in there, maybe judging

the way they’re teaching. And, like, we just want to learn from them. We wouldn’t

be sitting there going ‘Oh, that’s wrong, this is the way we do it.’ We want to learn

their way as well…(2017).

ST experiences of observation varied and reflect the voluntary nature of the school-based

support to student teachers within the overall SP partnership (Teaching Council, 2013, 10).

Learning how to observe an experienced teacher and identify and understand the different

skills that he or she is using is an achievement in itself; it is something that students need

support in learning how to do (Furlong & Maynard, 1995, 183). However, our data confirms

that experienced teachers within schools remain at liberty to refuse student observations.

According to one ST, ‘your SP experience depends on how seriously the school takes SP. Co-

operating teachers either tend to be very helpful or not’ (2016).

8.5.2 OBSERVATION AND HEI TUTORS


159

We already described in considerable detail the practices of HEI tutors in observing STs

teach in Chapter Five. In that chapter we analysed evidence of the feedback process which

included feedback from HEI tutors based on their observations of STs teaching. Student

teacher interview data was generally positive in relation to the HEI tutor visit during SP. One

of the advantages of probing the same issue e.g. observation with all players: STs, CTs and

HEI tutors is the opportunity afforded the research to triangulate the evidence. The account

offered in Chapter Five on the nature of feedback and how it is given together with the

accounts of how observation is conducted tallies exactly with the accounts offered by STs.

Some STs felt that the tutor visit detracted from their overall SP experience due to nerves and

anxiety. And even though STs were positive about the impact on their learning of being

observed teaching, most experienced some tension at being observed or as some said

‘inspected’ because ultimately, they argued, ‘it is an assessment’. Invariably there was at

least one ST in every focus group interview who gave accounts of inconsistency in the

feedback which was a concern for them. Very many students in different focus groups talked

about what they believed was a need for a more standardised approach on the part of the HEI

tutors observing them. A fascinating feature of the narratives of being observed by their

tutors is their frequent dramatic nature, linked to fear, surprise, unpredictability, feelings of

panic, even terror. The physicality of the observation/assessment process is also expressed.

The following indicate these points:

We are told the names of our tutors but we don’t always know what they look like so

I’m at the window and if I see anyone who looks a bit professional with a bag, my

heart is in my mouth until I figure out who they are.

It’s really terrifying, awful. It’s that element of surprise. I have no window so they’re

in the room before I know it. Sometimes the night before we might get an inkling of a

visit by another student getting a visit so we know the tutor is on the rounds. This

happened a few of us. We were expecting a visit and we had incredible lessons

planned but no show. Sometimes another teacher might spot them coming and a child

legs it down the corridor to alert you.

The ST who expressed the last point here went on to say how she would feel much more

comfortable and not suffer from nerves with her CT and argued for a shared 3-way

communication between the ST, CT and HEI tutor. As we know from the literature this

scenario offers the potential for meaningful professional learning and a shared appreciation of

knowledge exchange (see Young and MacPhail, 2016). It also points up the advocacy role of

the CT which was also brought out in Chapter Seven. STs are very accepting of the

assessment role of the HEI tutor but a majority also believe that CTs should have a role in

their assessment (Table 8.3).


160

Table 8.3: Opportunities, Reflection, Assessment

% Agreeing PrimR1(R2)* PostPrimR1(R2) Total R1(R2)

My CT assists me with

class management

75 80 78

My HEI tutor assists

me with class

management

70 56 63

My peers assist me

with class management

75 75 75

It’s a good idea to have

a period of observation

in my SP class

100 86 92

It’s a good idea to team

teach with CT

72 43 57

I have opportunity to

team teach with another

person (ST or CT)

66 (71) 66 (36) 66 (58)

My CT facilitates me

trying out alternative

ways of doing things in

the classroom

76 (92) 64 (74) 70 (85)

I’m encouraged to

teach independently

78 (99) 93 (96) 91 (98)

My CT helps me to

critically reflect on my

practice

47 33 38

My HEI tutor engages

in critical reflection

with me

77 78 78

The CT should have a

role in assessment /

grading of my

competence

57 63 60

My CT is best placed to

assess my teaching

62 41 52

My HEI tutor is best

placed to assess me

77 67 72

My HEI tutor, CT and I

have 3-way discussion

11 (32)* 19 (28)* 15 (30)*

*wording slightly different in R2 questionnaire so not precisely comparable year on year

8.6 PLANNING, EVALUATING AND REFLECTING STs are encouraged to become ‘reflective practitioners’ during the course of their ITE. To

support them in doing this, they are required to keep a personal journal recording their

experiences of the SP. Reflection is regarded as a key activity during this teacher

development process (Postholm, 2008). Russell (2005) further argues that teacher educators


161

should create discursive context/communities to situate student teachers for reflective

practices. Student teachers in our study are required to set learning goals for themselves

based on their reflections and learning through programmes. They are required to reflect on

varying aspects of teaching and learning and to report their reflections and evaluations in

their professional portfolio and discuss them with their tutor.

Writing up reflections on their lessons and experiences on SP is a major component and all

students have strong views on the process. There is a consensus among students that

reflection is important, it fits with their notion of what it is to do a complex job and be part of

a profession. In no focus group interview with groups of students could one detect any

objection to the need to reflect, to learn how to be a reflective practitioner, to write one’s

reflections, to share them with others and to act on them in subsequent lessons. It is clear that

students valued being taught how to evaluate their practice and for most this was part of their

HEI assignment demand. It is noteworthy that HEI tutors were seen to play a major role in

enabling students to engage in reflection, a greater role than their CTs (Table, 8.3). Some did

not come to reflection easily, the relevance of it had to be demonstrated to them by their

tutors and several were sufficiently persuaded by its importance to continue to write

reflections into their career as teachers:

I think when I started it seemed kind of airy fairy… And then as I went on I kind of

started to understand how to and I think it has an awful lot of value…. And even the

idea of reflecting on something makes it more worthwhile than just doing something

and getting on with it to tick a box. So coming down to it now we have a lot in

college with, we have reflective assignments and things like that to get us into the

practice of it and it’s definitely worthwhile. I’d consider keeping it on (2017).

For me critical reflection is vital in the career we have chosen. The name of the game

is teaching and learning and they change… the students change every year. I think if

we become complacent we don’t offer the kids the teaching and learning that they

deserve and the amount of potential and opportunities that they should get in school.

I think it’s vital for our professional development, for our ongoing learning … (2017).

However, what is an issue for students is the scale of the demand of critical reflection. Most

students argued that it detracts from their time and ability to plan teaching, prepare resources

and participate in other school work. Most argued that the scale of it detracts from their

enjoyment and opportunity to experiment and could even lead to burn out. The following

quotes from those interviews are very typical STs:

I don’t think that it’s realistic to be able to reflect in every single class that you plan

for throughout the day (2017).

It’s a pain!! If I reflect any further the men in white coats will be coming to bring me

away!!! It’s about evaluation. . . We have to do far too much of it. It’s taking away

from your lesson planning. Class and teaching so positive and then you have to do

this evaluation and reflection and it has to be academic writing and it has to be

referenced. You get insane from it. I think it should be far less, and maybe just verbal

and record it verbally. (2016)


162

8.7 EXPENSE3 AND PRESSURE OF WORK In this final section of the chapter we present evidence on two related issue on which STs

also feel extremely strongly – the twin dimensions of the intensity of the workload while on

SP and its cost, both of which add to stress levels.

In some cases, STs have to travel significant distances, from their SP school to their HEI

College and from their homes to their SP school in order to undertake SP. One ST noted, ‘I

was placed very far away from my home which incurred very large transport and

accommodation costs over three weeks …approx. 900 euro …’ (ST, 2017, Year 3). Another

ST observed, ‘it was very difficult to find schools to facilitate placement and often schools

are far from home and college and this leads to it being very expensive as accommodation

has to be paid for’ (ST, 2017, Year 3). Students were concerned about having to pay for their

accommodation at/near their College while living at home and thus not using their

College/city accommodation. According to our survey data in Round 2 (2017) the mean time

and distance of an SP school from a HEI college was 115 minutes and 88 kms. The time and

mean distance of an SP school from the students’ home was 40 mins and 27 kms.

Costs also arose from preparing resources and printing documentation: ‘resources add up and

overall they can be quite expensive… ‘(ST, 2017). The expenses outlined included

paperwork, printing of lesson plans and resources for the classroom. Primary PME and BEd

students were concerned about the cost of teaching resources such as Art materials. Several

students recommended the use of laptops instead of having to have ‘endless folders for

everything’.

Others claimed that STs ought to be paid for SP, much like in other professions, to relieve the

financial strain of becoming a teacher:

SP is very financially demanding …nurses go on placement and get paid and some

engineers, student teachers should be paid on SP (ST, 2017, Year 4).

Workloads are considered ‘excessive’, ‘highly pressured’ and ‘unrealistic’ and those words

were used liberally in relation to the detail required in lesson planning/scripting and in

writing evaluations.

In 2017, STs identified an additional concern that they were being timetabled to teach classes

separate from the classes of their CT. This posed a dilemma for some STs as they felt they

could not refuse a potential employer when asked to help out. One ST noted that she ‘felt

torn’ and ‘rudderless’ when asked to take extra classes and mark exam papers at home by her

CT (ST, 2017). As we reported in Chapter Five HEI tutors are aware of such demands and

seek to mediate where possible.

3 The Union of Students in Ireland (USI) along with the teacher unions reported on the cost of SP, showing that

42% of STs consider dropping out of college due to financial pressure (USI, 2018).


163

8.8 CONCLUSION SP is a significant and positive experience for the vast majority of STs. It is the space where

theory and practice meet for them. It is hugely affirming and life-enhancing: it powerfully

communicates to them in the most direct way what their strengths and skills are as emerging

teachers; equally, it exposes their weaknesses but it clarifies what they need to do to

overcome them; it reminds and re-affirms their idealism, optimism and passion about their

chosen career. The evidence shows how STs are highly appreciative of the opportunity to

participate in the life of their placement school and the extended placement is key to this

opportunity. Both the 10-week block and the continuous SP allow for establishing working

relations with learners and colleagues and thus to experience and sustain deeper and more

meaningful curricular activity with pupils. Students value the opportunity to observe teachers

and to team-teach but, as shown in other chapters, this experience is very dependent on their

CTs and can vary significantly from student to student. Thus it is arguable that this could

pose an equity issue and is a theme worth addressing where possible in the future.

Students recognise the importance of reflection and planning but they are very critical of the

scale of evaluating that they are typically required to do. Some are also critical of




that SP is overall a very intense and tiring experience. Finally, students are very conscious of

the considerable expense associated with training to be a teacher and much of the expense is

associated with SP.


164

CHAPTER 9: ILLUSTRATIONS OF GOOD PRACTICE

9.1 INTRODUCTION Case study research is often used to glean ‘real life’ insights into professional learning and

organisational change be it at an individual or systemic level (Merriam, 1998). Case studies

have a capacity to tell ‘stories from the field’ from which the reader/listener can draw his/her

own conclusions (DES, 2015; Somekh and Lewin, 2005). Findings by O’Grady (2017) in her

four case studies of how post-primary schools are experiencing implementation of the

Guidelines on School Placement (Teaching Council, 2013)4 is a case in point. It is not the

placement ‘procedures and paperwork’ (Furlong et al., 2006: 43) per se that dominate the

perspectives of principals and teachers in O’Grady’s (2017) research; rather, it is the very

nature of communications (in-school, and between the HEI and the school) together with

perceptions of mutual respect and trust that emerge as the most significant variables at play in

the bedding-down of the Guidelines. Interestingly, the variables are all process-related.

This chapter will explore six vignettes drawn from placement-related practices in Ireland that

we believe indicate good practice in the context of HEI-school partnerships in school

placement. Whilst the vignettes are categorised under school/domain names, it is important to

highlight that the good practice cited in some instances grew out of HEI initiatives or

genuinely collaboratively HEI-school innovations in school placement.

9.2 THE VIGNETTES We believe also that the heuristic nature of vignettes, cases or scenarios contributes to one’s

understanding of placement-related complexities and their interrelatedness with a range of

different factors; ‘insights into how things get to be the way they are can be expected to result

from case studies’ (Stake, 1981:47). The benefit of hindsight can be drawn into the present.

In what follows, six vignettes (three primary, three post-primary) are presented as exemplars

of good practice in school placement. ‘Good’ is understood to be that which contributes to

learning in its broadest sense, and to the processes that promote strong sustainable school-

HEI partnerships. This is in line with creative school-HEI collaborations elsewhere (Kruger

et al., 2009; McLaughlin et al., 2006). It is also in line with what it means ‘to be’ and to know

in Delorian terms (Delors, 1996) and to function as networked communities of, for, and in

practice (Engeström, 2001). The underpinning conceptualisation of ‘partnership’ in this

chapter is therefore one in which schools and HEIs view school placement as a process

requiring mutual engagement, sharing of professional repertoires for example around

knowledge and knowing, and a sense of joint enterprise (Wenger et al., 2002). In that context,

no one party has a monopoly on craft and/or theoretical knowledge.

For ease of reading, the exemplars are explored under three headings, namely, description,

discussion, and key take-aways. Each of the vignettes is anonymised and each is bounded by

its own unique situated contextualities. The vignettes are not intended to be prescriptive or

4 Hereafter referred to as the Guidelines.


165

simplistic but rather ‘a label of convenience for a complex’ (Schostak, 2002:22). They are

merely illustrative of how a school/community and/or a HEI have responded to

implementation of the Guidelines within the context of ‘partnership’ in school placement.

The hope is that the vignettes will provide a grounded framework or a set of broad principles

for discussion around placement (Yin, 1994). Any generalisations are a matter for the reader

in line with the view that ‘responsibility for determining universality rests with the reader’

(Sugrue, 1997:52).

VIGNETTE 1: ORCHARD VIEW PRIMARY SCHOOL AND METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY: A

PARTNERSHIP IN PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR SP

DESCRIPTION Orchard View is a large urban, mixed gender primary school with an administrative principal.

The majority of the children are from affluent homes in the school catchment area. The

school has been involved in a number of curriculum innovations and projects over the years.

School communications to parents are a regular feature of school life; they include

welcoming new student teachers (viewed as ‘members of staff’) and citing their importance

to children’s learning and school development. The communications also outline the duration

and classes for the various placements and the student teachers’ involvement in the broader

school life for example, the whole school basketball blitz. In-school leadership

communications with staff tend to be relaxed but focused and there is a strong ethos of ‘let’s

give it a go’ and ‘we’ll learn’ approach when it comes to decision-making around

participation in projects. The school has a longstanding tradition of offering placements to

student teachers from a range of HEIs. It has a whole-school approach and policy in relation

to school placement. Prior to the issuing of the Guidelines in 2013, the school was involved

for many years in a partnership project on school placement with its nearest HEI:

Metropolitan University (MU). The project included professional development around

mentoring student teachers and teacher learning more broadly. The professional development

provided by the HEI enabled teachers, student teachers and HEI tutors to explore roles and

responsibilities in a partnership model of placement and in a very organic and collaborative

way. The learning was not rushed but allowed to grow in line with the capacity of the

teachers and the stage of development of the school. Mentoring materials were developed by

the project participants.

When the Teaching Council Guidelines were issued, the teachers who had participated in the

MU-school partnership project were key people in generating discussion around school

placement. This in turn got teachers talking about their own experiences of placement, their

current learning needs, and what teachers would consider as the ‘essentials’ in strong school-

HEI relationships and partnerships in school placement.

The school offers placements to a range of HEIs but has a preference to work with HEIs who

have invested in the professional development of its teachers and with whom strong

relationships have developed over the years. During school placement periods, teachers

continue to use the project mentoring materials that grew out of their collaborative

partnership experience with MU more than a decade ago.

DISCUSSION


166

A strong feature of Orchard View Primary school is that ‘professional conversions’ (Young

et al., 2015) around school placement tend to be informal a great deal of the time and at other

times formally structured for example at staff meetings. School Placement is discussed at

staff meetings. Student teachers are viewed as important resources for children’s learning

bringing fresh new ideas about pedagogies and curriculum to the school, and this is

communicated by the Principal to staff, parents and the Board of Management. Equally so,

HEI staff are viewed by the Principal and staff as important capacity-building agents for

teachers in working more confidently with student teachers through joint CPD opportunities

such as those that led to the development of placement support materials. Similar findings

were cited in Project Supervision (Sim, 2010) an Australian project where placement

supervision materials were co-designed by teachers and HEI staff. In Orchard View Primary

School, the actual process of getting to know HEI staff at a human level (through the CPD

seminars) and vice versa over a period to time seemed to have built strong good-humoured

relationships with HEI tutors (and vice versa) which have endured over time. Mutually

positive relationships have enabled all involved to take and share risks together and feel

jointly responsible for placement processes and outcomes. Jones et al. (2016) would likely

view such school-HEI relationships as key in the development of a generative and a

transformative partnership. It is worth noting that in Orchard View’s approach to placement,

parents are part of the conversation around school placement. This is turn helps students to

feel like a ‘real teacher’; feelings which are incredible important in ‘human flourishing’

(Heron and Reason, 1997; Noddings, 1997) and in developing students’ own professional

identity (Clandinin and Connolly, 1995). One senses in Orchard View a good fit in the

alignment of different supportive processes and structures around school placement with the

school’s own educational goals; it is a dynamic fit that changes over time and seems to have a

self-sustaining effect on the school’s commitment to partnership with HEIs in school

placement. One senses also that a meaningful and shared experience of ‘partnership’ with

MU some years earlier provided a deeply rich and enduring reservoir of knowledge, skills

and dispositions around placement from which the school and MU continue to draw.

A number of key take-away messages can be drawn from the Orchard View exemplar.

KEY TAKE-AWAYS 1. The development of placement-related materials can be the seed that enables

‘partnership’ in school placement to be experienced, understood, and grown.

2. Opportunities to talk about teaching, learning, knowing, and knowledge in shared

spaces make explicit the implicit in teaching, learning, and school placement.

3. The human dimension in teacher learning is important; mutual trust and respect build

strong school-HEI relationships (Higgins et al., 2013)

4. How and who we communicate with in relation to school placement matters a great

deal; communication helps to align thinking, resources and actions.

The next vignette explores the communication dimension in a school placement setting.


167

VIGNETTE 2: FOREST VIEW PRIMARY SCHOOL AND BIRCHWOOD UNIVERSITY COLLEGE: A

COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE

DESCRIPTION Forest View Primary School is a small, mixed gender, ethnically diverse urban school serving

a large number of children from educationally disadvantaged backgrounds. Like Orchard

View Primary School, it has a strong tradition of facilitating students from a range of

different HEIs. The school does not have a written policy on school placement but the

school’s unwritten policy is visceral. The Principal is strongly of the view that students from

different ITE institutions bring different kinds of expertise in terms of curriculum,

methodologies, assessment and orientations to planning and preparation. As ‘guests bringing

gifts’ (Edwards, 1997) that enrich children’s learning, students are welcomed and supported

by the school’s customised interpretation of the Guidelines. Two particular structured support

systems deserve mention; firstly, the Welcome Pack, and secondly, the professional learning

invitations from a HEI to placement schools.

The Welcome Pack

Prior to students’ initial visit to their placement school, students receive a ‘Welcome Pack’

from the school (an innovation by a Principal in a similar type school). The Welcome Pack is

available to students via the HEI Placement Unit. The Welcome Pack comprises a ‘Welcome

to our School’ letter from the Principal and Board of Management in which the values, goals

and raison deter of the school are outlined; the importance of student teachers to the

children’s learning and overall effectiveness of the school is stated. The school views

placement as a partnership process with the HEI. Enclosed in the pack is a map of the school,

roles within the school, and school contact details (including an emergency number).

Included also is a short paragraph on expectations; what the school expects of the student

teacher during placement, and what the student can expect of the school. Students are viewed

as members of staff but it is clarified for students and staff that the ultimate responsibility for

the children’s progress and wellbeing rests with the co-operating teacher/s.

HEI Invitations to HEI-based Professional Learning Events

Over the past three years, Forest View Primary School has received invitations from one of

its HEIs to various professional learning seminars/mini-conferences held at the HEI. The HEI

invitations are sent to schools that offer placements to its students on an on-going basis. Staff

from Forest View have attended evening seminars at the HEI on ‘Inclusive School Cultures’,

‘Literacy across the Curriculum’, ‘Assessment Approaches’, ‘The Environment in Learning’;

these themes were suggested by the schools in response to expressed needs. The seminars are

highly valued by Forest View and are perceived as a meaningful initiative by the HEI in

sharing different types of knowledge and expertise in a friendly learning space. The seminars

are also perceived as an important pragmatic benefit of partnering with the HEI in the area of

school placement. There is a sense of reciprocity in the goodwill of the HEI towards Forest

View and the other schools that are invited to attend.

The Principal of Forest View emphasises that not only do staff learn new knowledge and

skills at the HEI seminars but they also provide opportunities to get to know HEI tutors in a

relaxed setting and to have professional conversations about learning and teaching and

teacher education. Parties do not feel rushed as happens oftentimes during placement

supervision visits. While the Principal appreciates the workload of HEI tutors, she is of the


168

view that HEI tutor time with co-operating teachers during placement is not sufficiently

enabling (due to time constraints) of authentic engagement by teachers in discussions around

student teacher progress and professional learning. The HEI seminars therefore open up new

spaces for deep professional dialogue and help to build school-HEI relationships. Critically

the seminars are viewed by Forest View as an important way of sustaining the goodwill of

the school towards the HEI in school placement. In the process, Forest View feels valued by

the HEI and does not feel ‘taken for granted’ when requests for placements are received by

the school. These are important feelings from the perspective of the Principal and staff of

Forest View.

It should be mentioned also that getting-to-know HEI staff in contexts beyond the school-

based supervision visits have contributed to a new confidence among the staff of Forest View

when problems arise on placement. While in the past there might have been a reticence on the

part of the school to contact the HEI on placement matters especially if problems arose, this

stance has all changed according to the principal. There is now no hesitation on the part of

the school to contact the HEI where challenges arise but with a view to finding a solution on

a joint basis; one example being how best to support a student teacher who does not seem to

be responding positively to school-based mentoring. Arising from one such situation in which

both the school and the HEI took joint responsibility in drawing up a learning development

plan with and for the student, it is now current practice of the HEI to issue guidelines to

partner schools on ways to assist students in difficulty whilst on placement. The practical

resource draws on a shared language and shared understandings around student teaching

learning that grew out of the collaboration with its placement schools.

The Principal of Forest View commented on how school staff and HEI tutors bring different

types of expertise to problem-solving and through sharing and discussion, a more effective

solution is found than might be the case if the school (or the HEI) decides to deal with the

matter solely on its own. There is a real sense of a school-HEI community of practice at

work, in the eyes of the Principal. It would be remiss not to mention that out of this initiative

has grown a new project; on an annual basis, the HEI invites sixth class children in its

placement schools to the HEI for some arts-based learning activities and a tour of the HEI as

a way of encouraging the children to consider teaching as a career. For many of these

children, factors such as their socio-cultural background and little or no tradition of third

level education in their families might have been perceived by them as barriers to accessing

routes into teaching. The HEI initiative is therefore opening up new horizons for these

children, an initiative that grew out of a school placement context and a desire to create new

horizons in that regard.

DISCUSSION Student teachers often cite the importance of feeling welcomed and wanted on placement as a

positive springboard for their learning during placement (Edwards, 2005).

The importance of practical information being available to students at the outset of placement

should not be underestimated in terms of its contribution to helping students feel at ease. It

also helps in reducing understandable placement-related stresses around for example

knowing where to find things in the school, and policy and procedural information. The

vulnerabilities of student teachers are well-documented and the role of emotionality in

learning to teach (Higgins et al.,2013); the Welcome Pack in Forest View therefore attended

to some of the important student needs that help to reduce learner anxiety and fear of change.

Having clarity around expectations of student teachers is a strong motivational tool for


169

students; the dual dimension (students knowing what they can expect of the school, and the

school setting out their expectations of the student) enables students to experience mutual

respect as a learner and as an emergent professional (Ní Áingléis, 2008).

One might speculate also that it is the personalisation dimension of getting to know HEI

tutors in a professional setting beyond the classroom placement context that enabled better

communication and more open school-HEI relationships to blossom; this sense of relational

agency could be drawn upon in joint dialogue and in finding creative solutions around real

placement challenges. It also helps to foster a culture that encourages teachers and HEI tutors

to critique assumptions about teaching and learning in a shared inquiry-based professional

learning space. A shared language around placement therefore grew organically in Forest

View and could be drawn upon in the information resource sheet co-created by the school

and the HEI. It is this sense of shared reflective ‘practical theorising’ (Hagger and McIntyre,

2006) between the HEI and placement settings that is, in our view, the essence of

professional learning communities.

The ‘deprivatisation of knowledge’ (Kruse et al., 1995), both craft and theoretical, through

discussion and reflection taking place in learning spaces beyond the school would seem to

have yielded valuable communication dividends for both Forest View Primary School and

the HEI that provided the various seminars. There is also the sense that feeling more relaxed

with HEI tutors encouraged Forest View to communicate more frankly about matters relating

to school placement.

Three key take-away messages can be discerned from the Forest View vignette.

KEY TAKE-AWAYS 1. Clarifying expectations for student teachers is an opportunity for schools and HEIs to

clarify and articulate how their respective expectations will assist student teacher

learning in a meaningful way. It is also an opportunity for both HEIs and schools to

give visible expression to a voice for student teachers on placement.

2. Practical information about the placement setting meets an important knowledge-

related need that student teachers value and require.

3. HEI-based professional learning seminars responsive to the needs of placement

schools are valued by schools and help build school-HEI relationships; they also hold

wider potential in terms of widening access to ITE.

While the Forest View exemplar illustrates how a HEI-led initiative supported the

professional development of school-based teacher educators, there are also case studies in

which student teachers have led professional learning and development in schools (Martin,

2011).

Vignette Three provides insights into how some final year student teachers have done so and

in the process contributed to the development of the Stenhousian idea of ‘teachers-as-

researchers’ (Stenhouse, 1975).


170

VIGNETTE 3: STUDENT TEACHERS (PRIMARY) LEADING TEACHER LEARNING

DESCRIPTION Final year student teachers in the particular HEI undertake a research project on a self-

selected theme with relevance to pedagogy and learning. Some students undertake the

research element of their project during the course of final placement. Ethical consent of the

school and the HEI are required in advance of commencing any school-based research.

Projects are planned in consultation with the co-operating teacher/s. Final year BEd students

Anita, Kevin, and Louise chose the following inquiry questions for their respective school-

based research:

Table 9.1 Student Teacher Research on School Placement

Student

Teacher

Research Question

Collaborators

Anita Can collaboration between co-operating

teachers and student teachers during the school

placement mentoring process be constructively

used by existing teachers to further facilitate

their own potential professional development?

Anita

Two co-operating

teachers (Anita was in

two different schools

for final placement)

Kevin How does assessment contribute to children’s

learning and school-wide learning and

improvement?

Kevin

Co-operating teacher

Whole staff

Louise Who are the learners in mentoring on school

placement?

Louise

One co-operating

teacher

The three students were in different schools located in different parts of the country.

Spotlight on Anita

Anita’s research topic grew out of her specialist knowledge in drama in education and a

liking for teaching drama and using drama-based methodologies across the curriculum. Some

teachers in Anita’s placement school had expressed a desire to learn more about arts-based

methodologies. Anita therefore planned lessons with two co-operating teachers and modelled

her drama lessons for both teachers followed by discussion and potential application of the

methodologies for teaching across the curriculum. The children were also involved in

planning the lessons, resource-making and in lesson-assessment. Both teachers subsequently

used drama methodologies with their own class and recorded their feelings and sense of

professional development if any. While both co-operating teachers did teach some drama

prior to the student teacher intervention, challenges around time, lacking subject knowledge

and confidence in teaching drama meant that its potential as a methodology for pedagogy and

learning was not fully explored by either teacher. Similar findings have emerged elsewhere

(INTO, 2009). Both teachers were inspired by Anita and critically have found a new

professional confidence through experiencing new drama methodologies and working

collaboratively with Anita as a student teacher. They also got to know Anita through mutual

mentoring; both commented on how they enjoyed their learning and perceived the student

teacher as a legitimate professional mentor in her own right. The experience of mutual


171

engagement in co-planning and co-learning gave rise to many conversations in the staffroom

about the benefits, challenges, and wider application.

Spotlight on Kevin

Kevin’s research project involved a collaborative project around innovative assessment-for-

learning approaches with his co-operating teacher and the children in the class. It was an

opportunity for Kevin to draw on the up-to-date research and knowledge in the area and its

applicability to the classroom setting. Kevin shared ideas, methodologies from his HEI,

research, and a large range of resources in the area with his teacher. Collaboratively they

explored a number of new approaches in the classroom during the course of the placement.

Discussions around assessment-for-learning and of-learning made its way into the staffroom

and generated a lively buzz of interest. In considering how good practice in assessment might

be shared across the school so that multiple benefits would be experienced by many classes,

Kevin was invited to present at a staff meeting followed by a facilitated discussion with staff

on assessment approaches, benefits to children’s learning, and research on assessment. The

staff meeting was the catalyst for review and updating of the school policy on assessment.

Critically, the new knowledge, shared learning and resources were subsequently used by

individual teachers to inform and improve their assessment approaches in their own

classrooms.

Spotlight on Louise

Louise’s action research project explored how structured feedback (verbal, written) can be a

pedagogic tool for learning (student teacher learning, co-operating teacher learning). Louise

and her co-operating teacher over the course of the ten-week placement explored the concept

of effective mentoring on school placement. They shared literature in the area, examined

cases studies (of successful, and unsuccessful mentoring), worked through the mentoring

resources from the HEI, experienced giving feedback (verbal and written) to each other

following co-taught lessons, and recorded how they felt about the process including benefits,

learnings, and any downsides. Louise drew on the expertise in her HEI to source and share

research literature on learning styles, reflective practices in learning to teach, dilemmas in

teaching, professional accountability, reflective mentoring approaches, observation, feedback

and communication, and more generally, research on teacher professional development

models. The project was also the subject for conversations between the teacher and the

assigned HEI placement tutor during tutor visits to the student. While Louise’s co-operating

teacher was broadly familiar with the mentoring documentation from the HEI, she did not

know how to exploit its full potential to support student teacher learning through structured

mentoring. Accordingly, she did not use the HEI materials sent to her in the initial placement

documentation. However, the actual experience of working collaboratively with her student

Louise where the relationship had built up over a number of weeks provided an opportunity

for experiential learning. The outcome brought a new meaning and a new relevance to the

HEI documentation; it also provided Louise’s co-operating teacher with a range of skills in

how to use structured mentoring to support student teacher learning and her own learning as a

mentor teacher.

DISCUSSION As referenced in earlier chapters, ‘partnership’ is a foundational tenet of the Guidelines

(Teaching Council, 2013). Student teachers are an important cohort of learners in enabling


172

and sustaining partnership processes. Vignette Three highlights the significance of student

teachers as valuable resources for teacher professional development. The student teachers

were part of the vibrant communities of practice in which they were located for placement

which enabled them to feel that they had something to contribute to enriching teachers’

pedagogies, children’s learning and in at least one case (Kevin) to school-wide improvement.

Teacher-talk that grew up around the various topics provides evidence of teachers moving

beyond a preoccupation with delineated roles and responsibilities in school placement, what

might be called the technical bricolage of ‘partnership’. We have seen how the collaborative

research projects gave rise to professional conversations around how teachers and student

teachers teach and learn, why teachers do things the way they do, and what might be done

differently. Student teachers contributed therefore to lifting up conversations about teacher

learning in classrooms, on corridors, in staffrooms. They encouraged imagination, mutual

engagement and sharing of professional repertoires to critically explore notions of learning,

teaching, knowing and knowledge. This is in line with the placement-related recommendation

of Martin (2011:30) when she suggests that ‘continuous professional development needs to

cover not only themes of mentoring, giving feedback, lesson analysis, etc. but also the

broader theme of what constitutes good practice in teacher education today’. A further

observation might be that the collaborative research projects helped to elevate to a more

professionally edifying level the perception that the role of the student teacher was merely to

provide ‘an additional and useful pairs of hands to work with children” (Edwards, 1997: 28).

Student teachers as powerful and practical agentic learners are well-documented elsewhere

(Ní Áingléis, 2009).

It is worth reflecting therefore on these placement case studies as exemplars of teachers-as-

researchers (Stenhouse, 1975) and schools as sites of learning not just for children but also

for teachers (and student teachers) and HEIs. Teaching is and must continue to be a

researching profession.

An appropriate way to lead into the take-away messages from Vignette Three might be to

reflect on the words of the two co-operating teachers in Anita’s research project:

Down the line when we get the placement letter from the college, it would be nice

maybe if the college would put a little appendix to the placement teachers that maybe

the student teachers and the teachers would work more collaboratively; that the class

teacher would try one new thing, one new focus – perhaps the drama perhaps

something in the arts and they would try that over the course of the month while the

student is in the room and that would maybe encourage the class teacher to try

something new (Co-Operating Teacher 1).

And in doing so, all the new ideas would filter better in through the system, rather than new

teachers having all the new ideas and the teachers that are qualified longer entrenched in

their ways (Co-Operating Teacher 2).

KEY TAKE-AWAYS 1. Student teachers are an important learning resource for teacher professional learning

across the continuum; how student teachers on placement contribute to school-wide

learning and improvement provides a rich research context.


173

2. Co-operating teachers seek to derive practical benefit from working with a student

teacher on placement in a way that contributes to developing their effectiveness as

teachers in their own classrooms.

3. Teaching as a researching profession includes an emphasis on learning more about

craft knowledge and expertise and applications to classrooms/schools; placement

opens up research opportunities for partnership work on placement.

4. If research projects are undertaken by students during placement, ought there be some

professional responsibility to share the outcomes of their research with their

placement settings? How might the HEI/school/student teachers showcase the

finalised projects in a way that celebrates partnership on placement and opens up

further learning for the school-HEI-student teacher partnership?

Vignette Four explores how a HEI in its efforts to develop its partnerships with schools

focused on responding to teacher needs around professional competence; this provided a

strong foundation for its relationship with placement schools.

VIGNETTE 4: SEAVIEW POST-PRIMARY SCHOOL AND OCEAN UNIVERSITY

DESCRIPTION Seaview Post-Primary School is a large urban post-primary school serving the needs of a

diverse student cohort. The school has a policy of offering placements to HEIs when the

school has available subject areas to match the HEI needs. With increasing and more frequent

demands for placements on a year-round basis from a range of HEIs, the school is more

favourably disposed towards Ocean University, a HEI which provides CPD to staff in areas

of need as expressed by staff. In such cases, the school reciprocates by providing as many

placements as possible within the school year and providing both a welcoming school

environment and a range of supports e.g. regular support meetings with student teachers

during the course of the placement.

An ethos of ‘teachers-as-learners’ prevails in the school and every opportunity is taken to

pursue CPD learning as a whole school or individually be teachers in their respective

subject/specialist area. However, there is no obligation on any teacher to attend CPD. The

Principal is of the view that all it takes ‘is the power of one’ to generate interest and

enthusiasm for partnership activities that are learning-oriented. CPD activities led by the

HEIs or others are perceived as partnership activities. CPD provided to support placement at

ITE level is located within Seaview’s integrated policy of learning across the continuum. It is

also aligned with the school’s perspective on whole school improvement (DES, 2016).

Ocean University’s School of Education has aligned their requests of schools for placements

with teacher professional development needs. It offers a suite of ‘Partnership for Learning’

CPD evenings (two hour sessions) over the course of the year to co-operating teachers. The

range of topics includes digital learning, assessment, and participative methodologies for

classrooms. The CPD seminars are provided in order to reciprocate the goodwill of schools

firstly, in accepting student teachers for placement and secondly, for providing supports to

students over the course of the placement. All partnership schools that offer placements to

this HEI receive a CPD booklet in early September in which the details of the CPD seminars

are outlined. The seminars are HEI-based, HEI-funded and facilitated by post-primary


174

teachers or HEI staff with specialisms in the seminar areas. The Ocean University CPD

certificates are valued highly by the co-operating teachers. Participant-evaluations are hugely

positive citing the strong relevance of the CPD topics to improving co-operating teachers’

own subject teaching and understanding of teaching. Evaluations also point to the value of

meeting and talking about teaching and pedagogy with practising teachers from other

schools. It would seem that the seminars are valued more for the contribution they make to

teachers’ own teaching than any particular new insight into school placement processes.

DISCUSSION While accepting the critique that the Guidelines (Teaching Council, 2013) are thin on the

practical implications of placement principles (Harford and O’Doherty, 2016), the non-

prescriptive nature of the Guidelines allows for the kind of creative HEI ‘Partnership for

Learning’ initiative to emerge organically. The vignette is an exemplar of the alignment of

HEI values and resources in responding to school-based needs and values. It is also an

exemplar of a school culture that nurtures and nudges teacher learning; it is a ripe

environment for a learning-oriented HEI-school relationship. The HEI-based seminars

provide real learning and listening opportunities for the HEI while at the same time building

and sustaining professional relationships with teachers and placement schools. Seminars

provide therefore the context for growing professionality (Hargreaves, 2000) and a

professional knowledge landscape rooted in community, in inquiry and in line with how

people learn:

The communities can build a sense of comfort when questioning rather than knowing

the answer and can develop a model of creating new ideas that build on the

contributions of individual members. They can engender a sense of the excitement of

learning that is then transferred to the classroom, conferring a sense of ownership of

new ideas as they apply to theory and practice (Bransford et al., 2000:25).

At a practical level and from a HEI perspective, the organisation and coordination of the CPD

is undoubtedly resource-intensive but the dividends are rich in terms of successfully securing

placements for HEI programmes that have a placement component. A further knock-on

benefit of the Partnership for Learning initiative is that participating schools value the efforts

of the HEI in tight budgetary times where there are other competing priorities at HEI level.

Three key-take away messages might therefore be drawn from this vignette.

KEY TAKE-AWAYS 1. CPD that focuses on developing craft knowledge and subject competence of co-

operating teachers tends to be responsive to teacher need; teachers want their own

teaching to improve and this desire is a key motivational aspect for participation in

HEI-led CPD and therefore in accepting a student teacher on placement.

2. A partnership initiative that focuses on one partner’s needs holds benefits for all; this

is an important ‘connective’ form of ‘partnership’ (Jones et al., 2016).

3. HEI-school relationships are enriched through structured CPD partnership activities

where the school culture is positively oriented towards learning.


175

Another perspective on ‘partnership’ is to conceptualise it as a network of relationships that

crisscross before, during and after school placement periods. Edwards and Mutton (2007)

favour this conceptualisation over one that focuses on discrete roles for HEIs and schools.

The penultimate vignette (Lattice) has emerged at a regional level at post-primary level in

response to the Guidelines and illuminates a networking, web-like orientation as a way-of-

being in school placement.

VIGNETTE 5: LATTICE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY FOR SCHOOLS (POST-PRIMARY)

DESCRIPTION Lattice is an approach developed at regional level by a school representative body designed

to connect continuum-wide structures that enable teachers to feel supported in learning and

teaching whether that be at ITE or induction level or continuously throughout their careers. It

is an approach based on interrelated webs of relationships crisscrossing each other in order to

maximise existing regional resources and expertise. Lattice attempts to join up thinking,

actions and the deployment of resources for teacher learning across the continuum in a

pragmatic and creative way. While not aspiring to be a panacea for the scaffolding of teacher

learning, the resulting process and ‘product’ is one which is in development and seeding new

possibilities for HEI-school partnership activities in the context of school placement.

The region in question has 15 post-primary schools (under the direct management of an

Education and Training Board) that are located about three hours from the nearest HEI. The

schools have varying traditions of offering placement for students. Increasingly, HEIs who

support teachers in their learning are the HEIs to whom placements are offered. The schools

are served by a regional induction co-ordinator (IC) whose role is to coordinate the

arrangements at regional level for induction support across the 15 schools and to support the

work of the induction co-ordinator in each of the schools. The IC also supports student

teachers on placement. The regional IC’s work is undertaken in tandem with his day-to-day

work as a practising subject teacher with some reduction in teaching duties to allow for

fulfilment of the IC role. The IC has a postgraduate qualification in models of teacher

professional development and works collaboratively with and under the direction of the

Director of Schools for the region. As an Associate (NIPT) for a number of years with a

large HEI, the regional IC has significant expertise in mentoring.

Lattice has a number of interrelated and interdependent elements.

Element One: Welcome Pack

All schools in the cohort have prepared a composite Welcome Pack for newly-appointed

teachers, retired teachers (who may be returning to do substitute work), substitute teachers,

and student teachers on placement. Each pack is customised to suit the unique context of the

school, its pupil cohort, school programmes, policies and procedures. Essentially, the

Welcome Pack comprises information for the recipient with commonalities in the contents

for all recipients for example an emphasis on teaching as a life-long learning process and the

importance of collaboration in planning and teaching within a whole school framework of

improvement. There is an emphasis on the sharing of expertise across the school in order for

support to be responsive to the challenges and needs of the particular school context. Rather

than building a culture of dependency around the school-based coordinator, teacher learning


176

for example at ITE level is being nurtured as a shared collective enterprise for the whole

school. Support structures for student teachers are outlined in the Welcome Pack.

Element Two: Induction Day for All New Teachers

On an annual basis, the ETB holds a one-day Induction Seminar for all new teachers in late

September. This day introduces the teacher to the range of supports available within the

network of the 15 schools. There is an emphasis on teacher learning throughout with brief

presentations on various teaching tools available to the new teacher such as Instructional

Leadership, Restorative Practice and Teacher Collaboration. Student teachers who may be on

year-long placement or on placement for the early part of the school year are also invited to

the Induction Day. It is envisaged that a Placement Support Seminar will be part of Lattice in

the 2018/19 school year. The seminar will focus on exploring student teacher needs and

models of responding in a flexible and manageable way to those needs at both classroom and

school level.

Element Three: Shared Online Learning Platform

All 15 school-based induction coordinators have access to a shared online folder (using

Google Drive) as a platform for the sharing of teaching and learning resources, ideas and

perspectives on pedagogies, and planning and assessment tools. These resources are shared

with teachers in the school and while initially devised to support newly-appointed teachers,

they are available to all teachers including student teachers. The shared learning platform has

been the catalyst for a teacher collaborative project involving clusters of teachers using the

resources within their schools and across schools to design new methodologies, assessment

strategies, and content for lesson planning for Junior Cycle Science and English. It has

opened up teacher dialogue about effective teaching, meaningful learning, and achievement;

this dialogue is continuum-wide. A shared folder of resources for placement exploring the

affordances of online learning platforms is currently in development for student teachers and

their cooperating teachers. One already exists for newly-appointed teachers and mentors. The

emphasis throughout this multi-layered Lattice project is building a culture of sharing

learning, peer support, and active engagement of student teachers and teachers in learning.

Element Four: Role of the Regional IC

The Regional IC while supporting the work of the school-based coordinators is also the

person who is developing ways of building partnerships with HEIs. This work is

conceptualised within an activity theory (Engeström, 2001) framework where placement

activities straddle school and HEI boundaries in order the serve the needs of student teachers,

co-operating teachers and ultimately the pupils in the schools. The learning of all (HEIs,

schools, student teachers, pupils) involved is enriched when ideas and perspectives from

different cultures and contexts are aired and shared to provide the basis for better and

improved ways of doing things. In the process, a new transformed ‘space’ is created which is

owned by those who have contributed, critiqued and contemplated a better way of doing

things in teacher learning and pupil learning.

DISCUSSION The notion of creating the conditions for ‘expansive learning’ (Engeström, 2001: 137) is

therefore at the heart of the work of those involved in Lattice. These conditions have been

nurtured through NIPT seminars for teachers but the need to augment these with the kinds of


177

Partnership for learning seminars available to Seaview Post-Primary School is real to ensure

equity in access to supports for teacher learning irrespective of geographical boundaries.

Shared learning seminars focusing on how to support student teacher learning in meaningful

ways is a new focus for the direction of Lattice in its communications with HEIs.

Geographical location is currently a barrier to schools in Lattice accessing HEI-based

seminars. It is neither feasible nor realistic to expect co-operating teachers to travel long

distances to access HEI-based CPD. Lattice is now seeking to explore how online access to

HEI-based CPD for its 15 schools might be enabled and supported structurally in the region.

The Guidelines (Teaching Council, 2013) have been interpreted by Lattice as an opportunity

for ‘expansive learning’ (Engeström, 2001:137) but this requires a strong commitment from

HEIs and schools supported further by the school-based coordinators and regional structures

to explore creative ways of enabling this to happen. If supporting student teachers in their

learning is perceived as the ‘boundary object’ (Engeström, 2001) then all systems with a

legitimate interest in that boundary object ought to converge in its direction. The boundary

object ought to be the focus of partnership activities in a way that does not compromise the

education and achievement of pupils in the school.

Working in boundary zones is complex and challenging; it forces all who are ‘brokering the

boundaries’ to have outward-looking dispositions, be strongly committed to sharing

complementary repertoires of expertise in a culture that encourages inquiry (Edwards and

Mutton, 2007). In this boundary-crossing work, relationships founded on mutuality of respect

and trust are therefore key (Tsui and Law, 2007; Young et al, 2015). This is particularly

important to offset the fall-out from uneducative experiences in some placement partnerships

where CPD for school-based teacher educators is deemed to be inadequate (Chambers and

Armour, 2012).

In the exemplar of Lattice, the webs of interrelated networks with a range of local partners

through ITE, induction and beyond sits comfortably with the notion of a shared ‘reciprocity

of accountability for capacity’ (Elmore, 2006:93). However, a missing link in this relational

partnership jigsaw might be to explore further the role of student teachers in sharing their

school-based research project outcomes undertaken during placement. In this way, student

teachers, as agentic teachers, are reciprocating in terms of sharing their expertise with co-

operating teachers.

A number of key take-away messages might be drawn from Lattice as an exemplar:

KEY TAKE-AWAYS 1. Conceptualising ‘partnership’ as webs of relational networks holds potential in terms

of understanding situated teacher learning across the continuum.

2. Partnership in school placement requires innovative ways to engage teachers and to

support them in their work and in their on-going learning.

3. Partnership ‘brokers’ are ideally placed to ensure that discourse around big teacher

education issues such as values, pedagogies, knowledge and knowing are part and

parcel of the local discourse around school placement.


178

The final vignette in this chapter tilts the discussion from boundary-crossings in webs of

relationships to the kind of boundary-crossing that occurs in a post-lesson observation

dialogue between a HEI placement tutor and two student teachers. Both student teachers,

Susan and Catherine, are on placement in two different post-primary settings serving pupils

with special educational needs. Entitled ‘On Dialogue’, the vignette exhibits what we believe

are strong features of high quality post-lesson dialogue around learning, communication, and

relationship.

VIGNETTE 6: ON DIALOGUE (POST-PRIMARY): MENTORING AND TEACHING ACADEMY

DESCRIPTION Susan is a final year student teacher on a post-primary ITE programme. She is nearing the

end of her penultimate placement in a special school. The HEI tutor observed Susan teaching

a home economics practical to pupils who have diverse learning needs. The practice in

Susan’s HEI is that lesson notes are submitted via the student portal to an online platform

customised for placement. This enables placement tutors to assess student planning in

advance of their visits to students. Catherine is also a final year student on her penultimate

placement on a post-primary ITE programme in the same HEI as Susan. The HEI tutor also

observed Catherine teaching a home economics practical to pupils with special educational

needs. Catherine works with one Special Needs Assistant (SNA) in her classroom. The HEI

tutor is a recently retired HEI member of staff with expertise in learning, teaching, and

evaluation in both mainstream and special educational settings. In addition, he brings a

wealth of research experience and a strong reflective approach to his role as a placement

tutor. He places a particular emphasis on developing students’ reflective capacities in how he

facilitates the post-lesson observation discussions.

The post-lesson discussion with Susan lasted circa 50 minutes and over an hour with

Catherine. Prior to each discussion, the HEI tutor spoke with the students’ co-operating

teachers. This enabled him to gain an overall sense of the unique contextualities of the

respective classroom/school setting and the perceived level of engagement and progress of

the students on placement from the school’s perspective. In addition, the discussion with the

co-operating teachers provided him with an opportunity to build the HEI relationship with the

respective school. The HEI tutor did this largely through active listening to school views

about placement in general and about the kinds of challenges being experienced at school

level that impact on offering placements.

DISCUSSION From the outset of the post-lesson observation discussions with both student teachers, the

HEI placement tutor placed a strong emphasis on three key areas:

(1) The quality (and evidence) of the learning of each individual pupil in the class;

(2) The quality (and evidence) of rapport in the classroom (student-pupil, pupil-student,

pupil-pupil, and student-others (e.g. SNA in Catherine’s classroom).

(3) The articulation of tacit knowledge and its link with student teacher goals and values.


179

(1) The quality (and evidence) of the learning of each individual pupil in the

class;

While the learning outcomes were written as a collective for the pupils in the class, each

student teacher had an opportunity at a very early point in the discussion to articulate their

unique contribution to the learning of each pupil emanating from the lesson that had just been

taught. This enabled students to funnel a generic concept of ‘value-addedness’ in their

teaching to a focus on what each individual pupil derived from the lesson in terms of his/her

learning. Both student teachers were asked to frame their responses against the learning

outcomes for the particular lesson. Having given each student time to do so, they were then

asked by the HEI tutor to reflect on how they could improve the learning of each pupil

mindful of the important and ultimate goal of independent living for the pupils in question.

This enabled students to connect the specific lesson objectives with the overall curriculum

aims. To scaffold the students’ thinking and participation in these discussions, the HEI tutor’s

questions were focused, probing, and helpful (without leading) in the prompts provided.

There was a good balance in the range of higher order and lower order questions posed by the

HEI tutor. For example, ‘What did you add to each pupil’s learning today, academically,

socially, practically?’ and made more specific by the HEI tutor naming each pupil for

example ‘What do you think you added to Anna’s attainment regarding literacy, numeracy,

practical skills? and ‘What have you added to Seán’s life?’ Time was then given to exploring

the nature of each pupil’s learning and how the student teacher contributed in his/her teaching

to that learning, and how pupils’ learning could be further enhanced. This enabled student

teachers’ subject and pedagogical knowledge to be discussed. Numerous ‘why?’ and ‘why

not?’ were interspersed throughout by the HEI tutor. All the while, the HEI tutor sought

evidence from the student for his/her assessments of each pupil’s learning. The language of

critical pedagogy was strongly evident in the dialogue. The articulation of students’ tacit

knowledge about pupils’ progress was foregrounded, providing opportunities for both student

teachers to check their taken-for-granted assumptions and to learn from tacit knowledge ‘out

loud’ so to speak. Learning from tacit knowledge is a powerful transformative process in an

effective ‘socially skilled teacher’ (Elliott et al., 2011). Tacit knowledge is also fundamental

to the concept of practical intelligence as a key intelligence in both teacher and school

effectiveness (Stemler and Sternberg, 2006; Sternberg and Horvath, 1999). The HEI tutor’s

skill in making students’ tacit knowledge explicit was in our view a key contribution of the

tutor to the learning of both student teachers during the post-lesson observation discussions.

The tutor discussions with the students had a discernible focus on learning at three levels; the

pupils’ learning, the students’ learning about their pupils’ learning, and the students’ learning

about themselves as teachers. The layering of meta-reflection therefore incorporated the

learning of pupils and the learning of student teachers and this in turn enabled the student

teachers to link theory and practice and to cite examples of how theory informed their actual

practices in the classroom. Course content taught at the university was therefore brought to

bear in an iterative way on the school-based work (planning and teaching).

Conceptualisations of differentiation and models of inclusive classrooms were teased out in

the discussions by the HEI tutor in dialogue with the students; this provided opportunities for

the students to reflect (with scaffolding by the HEI tutor) on how theory informs day-to-day

teaching and how practice can in turn re-inform theory to create new theories about learning

and teaching. At various points the HEI tutor advised the students to follow up further on

relevant research and theories. For example, Catherine needed to do further reading on

Vygotsky around the zone of proximal development, and in particular to consider the kinds of


180

scaffolding that are required to ensure pupil X felt sufficiently supported to enable him

develop his independence in a more graduated manner. But the rationale to do so was

provided by Catherine in the first instance; the HEI tutor’s role was in fleshing out the

theoretical and practical applications further in weaving theory with practice and practice

with theory. It was also interesting to note that the HEI tutor provided both students with

opportunities to view their pupils as important resources for all children in the class and for

teaching/learning processes more broadly. Both students were asked to articulate ways in

which the pupils could assist pupils in their learning in more dynamic and participative ways

than perhaps were happening. Applications of such theories as learned helplessness emerged

in a very naturalistic way during the post-lesson discussions, and what students might do to

counteract the negative potentiality of learned helplessness. Students were therefore helped to

see themselves as active boundary-crossing agents in making sense of their own teaching,

their own learning and their own reflections on learning (school-based, and university-based).

In turn, this enabled both student teachers to contribute to new knowledge development for

themselves as teachers, as learners, and as theorists in their own right, and with powerful

control over those learning processes. New knowledge developed through ‘boundary-

crossing’ is always deep and meaningful (Wang and Wong, 2017).

It was notable also how the HEI tutor affirmed both student teachers particularly in his non-

verbal communicative style. Affirmation for both student teachers was embedded first and

foremost in how the HEI tutor actively listened and nodded respectfully to the student

teachers as they responded. The non-verbal communication was as powerful as the verbal. No

sense of the tutor being pressed for time (although the tutor did have a heavy schedule of

supervision duties) was conveyed to the student teacher and the calmness of the dialogic

ambience enabled the HEI tutor and the student teacher to process the words and

contributions of each other in a profoundly respectful and meaningful way. This is very

strongly evocative of the concept of ideological becoming in a dialogic learning space

defined by communication that is underpinned by trust and respect (Bakhtin, 1981). Within

this dialogic space, and evident in HEI’s approach to lesson discussion, there was plenty of

room for difference in perspective and in expertise. Indeed, our view is that differences that

emerged in the tutor-student discussions were the bedrock for student teacher growth and

development. It was how difference was so skilfully mediated (verbally and non-verbally) by

the HEI tutor that became the all-important enabler in the space. This observation became

further evident in how the HEI tutor oriented student teacher thinking during the post-lesson

discussion to the quality of webs of rapport in the classroom.

(2) The quality (and evidence) of rapport in the classroom (student-pupil,

pupil-student, pupil-pupil, and student-others e.g. SNA in Catherine’s

classroom).

The HEI tutor explicitly asked both student teachers, Catherine and Susan, how they had

developed their rapport with their pupils and how relationships in the classroom had

contributed to creating a participative and purposeful learning ambience for the pupils.

Getting to know their learners (as individuals first and foremost, and as a group) and the

rationale for same was therefore focused upon by students in their thinking and ultimately in

their individual responses. This enabled the discussion to move on to a focus on the quality

and nature of progressional lines of learning for each child and how lessons were linked in

terms of outcomes, methodologies, modes of assessment and utilisation of assessment

outcomes in planning. Students’ perceptions around pupils with special educational needs


181

were teased out, and their underestimation of pupils’ abilities prior to the placement in

question. This brought the dialogue back to the person of the student teacher, and their own

professional identity and growth. Susan was ‘terrified’ at the outset of the special educational

needs placement; she ‘felt sorry’ for the pupils and ‘totally underestimated them, their

potentialities’. However, it was only through the process of getting to know her learners that

her thinking about their capacities to learn changed and changed utterly. Susan confirms this

transitional process in her own learning:

Susan: As I got to know them, they would tell me about their hobbies, they have

interests, the choir…I always thought of them as a separate group of people. I never

realised they are all into music, sport, everything other teenagers are interested in, but

they are so happy…. I realise that everybody is an individual. I said that before this

school placement but hadn’t experienced it before. I’ve learned that these kids are

amazing, their potential….

Throughout the post-lesson observation discussions, the HEI tutor consistently probed

student teacher perceptions in a deep but supportive way while at the same time challenging

the student to reflect on ways to improve that were meaningful to the situated context. For

example, in helping to track the individual progress of each pupil, Susan would in future use

an acronym for each pupil’s name, citing the specific target for each child in the various areas

and supports for that child (using the children as resources for each other also) and revisiting

relevant literature such as Vygotsky. This was all part of the scaffolded discussion with each

student. It was also interesting to note that the HEI tutor welcomed Catherine’s evaluation of

preparedness for placement when she stated that she felt ill-prepared by her college for

working effectively with an SNA in the classroom. The HEI tutor signalled to Catherine that

he would welcome additional feedback from the student after the placement as to what needs

to happen in university-based course work in order to improve students’ capacities to

collaborate more effectively with SNAs and other support staff in the classroom. The seeking

of feedback by the tutor of how the HEI could improve reflected a two-way learning

orientation in the post-lesson discussion. This enabled the student to view the HEI tutor as an

authentic learner also. The respectful nature of the HEI tutor’s communicative style was

mirrored in how he sought feedback from the student teacher and how he validated student

teacher agency in the process. It was also a powerful way of legitimising what Lave and

Wenger (1991) envisaged in their conceptualisation of student teacher peripheral

participation in a community of learners. The potential for student teacher voice to refresh

teacher education pedagogies is indeed great (Kidd, 2012); in our view, post-lesson

observation discussions with student teachers is a fertile space for this type of HEI-self

evaluative work to flourish.

It is worth reflecting further on how the HEI tutor foregrounded an emphasis on the

articulation of tacit professional knowledge grounded in the student teacher’s own

professional goals and values as a way of scaffolding the student’s reflectiveness and

improvement. Student teacher personal/professional identity was the golden thread in our

view throughout the post-lesson discussion; this dimension forms the third and final focus in

our discussion of this vignette.


182

(3)The articulation of tacit knowledge grounded in student teacher goals and

values.

Given the hidden, taken-for-granted nature of tacit knowledge (Polanyi, 1958), it is

particularly helpful to a student teacher when a HEI tutor is explicit and clear in post-lesson

observation questioning. When Susan was asked ‘What difference has it [this placement]

made to you as a teacher?’, there was no escaping an obligation on Susan to pause, reflect

and articulate her own innermost goals, values, dreams and aspirations around teaching and

wanting to be a teacher. Critically, it required Susan to interrogate how she herself as a

person was changing (if at all) and being changed by the situated context. In a recent address,

Coolahan (2017) highlighted the person of the teacher as the most critical dimension in the

quality of educational provision; he cited the inseparability of personal/professional identity

in effective learning and teaching. Both Susan and Catherine, as student teachers, got

opportunities in their post-lesson discussions to unpack the three Sternbergian dimensions of

tacit knowledge, namely, knowledge about self, others, and tasks (Sternberg, 1997). So,

questions around the students’ own goals and values led to discussions around how well the

students believed they fared in term of matching pupil tasks and learning outcomes and how

this work sat with their own goals and values as student teachers. There was a strong sense

therefore of the tutor opening up the students’ thinking and drawing them into a deep learning

space but valuing first and foremost what students themselves had to bring to that dialogic

space. The quality of the tutor’s own relationship with the students was particularly

significant in this creative endeavour. Of course, learning can also take place when mentoring

relationships do not work out (Chambers and Armour, 2012). But in this particular vignette

under scrutiny, there was a strong sense of a Buberian philosophy in how the HEI tutor

facilitated the ‘I-Thou’ post-lesson discussion space (Buber, 1958); the student teacher was

enabled (through authentic dialogue with the tutor) in the process of becoming. This dovetails

well with the notion of mentoring student teachers as a process of ‘assisted becoming’

(Edwards, 1998; Edwards and Collison, 1996). The strength of the tutor’s ethical regard (at a

number of levels) for the student teacher in that process seemed to allow the tutor to walk in

the shoes of the student in the situated context, and it was this sense of tutor attentiveness to

student ‘becoming’ that made all the difference. This is very much, we believe, in line with

Rule’s idea of diacognition, ‘coming to know through a situated process of positioning and

repositioning in dialogic exchange with oneself and with others’ (Rule, 2015:143).

Relationship, communication, and becoming are therefore inextricably linked in post-lesson

observation discussion.

It may well be that having online access to students’ teaching notes in advance of the

teaching day was one of the factors that enabled the HEI tutor to be much more fully present

in the dialogic space than might have been the case otherwise.

We conclude our discussion with some key take-away messages from this vignette ‘On

Dialogue’.

KEY TAKE-AWAYS 1. Student teacher learning is enriched by reflective processes that focus on the probing

and articulation of students’ tacit knowledge, goals and values.

2. Post-lesson observation discussions that mirror ethical regard in dialogic spaces

contribute to learning, improvement, and human flourishing at a number of levels.


183

3. Getting to know individual learners in classrooms and discerning the optimal

alignment of professional actions to their situated needs are foregrounded in high

quality post-lesson observation dialogue.


184

CHAPTER 10: CONCLUSION

10.1 CONTEXT The Teaching Council guidelines on SP provide the context for this study. The reforms in

teacher education introduced new arrangements for SP that require an extension to the

duration of ITE programmes as well as an extended period in school during which students

have opportunities to participate in the life of the school as well as direct teaching in classes

accompanied by a co-operating teacher. A more broadly based professional experience is thus

expected. A major change is that all STs on placement have a co-operating teacher who,

along with their HEI tutors, supports them in their professional learning. A key element in

this support is the opportunity to observe teaching, co-plan and co-teach with their CTs.

Having experience in more than one school is also necessary and STs are expected to get

experience of teaching across all the levels of the school e.g. infant, junior and senior classes,

including multi-grade, at primary level, and junior and senior cycle classes at post-primary.

Among the educational purposes of the changes are the strengthening of the integration of

theory and practice, the development of an inquiry orientation, and an appreciation of the

need to base professional decisions on evidence. HEIs and schools are expected to build

partnerships in the interests of maximizing the professional learning of student teachers and a

much stronger emphasis is placed on the student teacher as learner while in school than was

the case in the past. Both the CT and the HEI tutor are expected to collaborate and share

expertise in fostering the student teacher’s learning. In this context the Teaching Council is

encouraging new kinds of relationships across CTs, HEI tutors and student teachers (STs).

The school itself is viewed as fundamental to the acquisition of the sophisticated repertoire of

skills and competences needed by teachers in contemporary society.

10.2 THE STUDY Research was needed about the implementation, bedding down and impact of the reforms and

so the Council commissioned this research. The research set out to document how the new

policy is being enacted, to track how HEIs, in collaboration with schools, are giving STs

access to high quality professional learning opportunities. The experiences and perspectives

of the major players in the system: student teachers, HEI tutors (including programme leaders

and directors of SP), co-operating teachers and school principals were central to

understanding the extent to which the new policy was being put into practice, and the issues

that were influencing its enactment. The commissioned study spanned four years with

fieldwork continuing until December 2017. The project incorporates a review of relevant

international literature, and interviews and questionnaire surveys of the key stakeholders

were paced in a way to capture development and change. Two rounds of fieldwork with the

key players provided a wealth of quantitative and qualitative evidence which sought to

establish the nature and extent of the implementation of the changes. Since effective practice

was of particular interest, this was fore-grounded in the examination of the literature and

throughout the empirical analysis. In view of the design and scale of evidence assembled and

analysed for the study, the findings reported below provide a fair and representative account

of practice nationally. Incorporated in the main empirical study are many accounts of good

practice and practices that align with the new policy. An additional aspect of the study

presents (further) illustrations of effective practice involving partnership between schools and


185

HEIs which are designed to provide case material for development and discussion.

10.3 MAIN FINDINGS FROM THE LITERATURE REVIEW Research highlights the importance of SP. Having diverse and extensive opportunities to

learn the art, craft and science of teaching, appropriate mentoring, feedback and constructive

dialogue are all important for the professional learning of the ST. Good working partnerships

between HEI and schools are also vital. The Irish reforms involving an extended placement

and the opportunity to work in different settings with co-operating teachers align with the

international evidence. The diversity of contacts and settings maximises chances for

observation, reflection and co-constructing knowledge. A major message from the review of

literature is that both the HEI and the school are fundamental to the professional development

of the student teacher and that how these partners relate, share and integrate their various

contributions matters a great deal. The HEI and the school are needed to enable the

integration of theory and practice and the notion that theory is associated with the HEI and

practice with the school is outmoded. STs benefit from having assignments set for them that

link with both settings. Opportunity to observe teachers teach is vital but the literature would

suggest that on its own it is inadequate. Observation needs to be balanced with opportunities

to reflect on and discuss the observed practice. The literature would suggest that to be a

reflective practitioner, reflection needs to be modelled by the school staff as otherwise it is

simply not valued by the student and not taken with them as part of their identity into their

future practice.

The literature indicates that CTs need to be carefully selected and trained for their roles and

that their roles need to be made explicit in terms of responsibily and approach. Training in

mentoring is important but training in matters of research/inquiry and innovative practices

would also appear to be relevant in view of the tendency in the existing research for STs to

mimic the practices of their CTs. HEI tutors working alongside teachers and student teachers

in school would appear to be one way, identified within the literature, of building effective

partnerships between HEI and school. Any such development has resource implications since

effective mentoring requires investment and it cannot be assumed that good teachers are

automatically good mentors for student teachers. Some jurisdictions devote considerable time

and resource to this dimension of teacher education. In Singapore for instance many school-

based mentors are senior teachers who have gone through a six-week, full-time course to

enable them mentor STs with a deep understanding of both college and school-based

requirements while in Australia state-based, online programmes are available to CTs/school

mentors. In general, STs do not typically source their own school placements. In Scotland,

for instance, there is a national system in operation for placing students in schools

10.4 MAIN FINDINGS FROM THE EMPIRICAL STUDY

10.4.1 IN A NUTSHELL SP is a deeply meaningful professional experience for the vast majority of STs who report

that they felt competent and confident about it and feel well prepared. It is the major vehicle

for the integration of theory and practice. STs teach in a variety of schools and all STs have

experience of teaching in more than one school over their ITE programme. All have an


186

extended SP of at least the equivalent of 10 weeks in duration, with strict adherence in all

programmes to the Teaching Council requirements on direct teaching. It is common practice

for STs to have at least one SP in their home area and most likely in a school they themselves

attended as a pupil. STs have a gradual increase in teaching responsibility and in no case do

STs assume a 100% teaching load. The concept of ‘co-operating teacher’ is established

insofar as STs, HEI tutors and teachers themselves are very familiar with the new

terminology and there is strong evidence that all STs are allocated a CT who offers guidance

and feedback on their developing practice. The vast majority of STs have the opportunity to

observe teaching. There is a great deal of communication between HEIs and schools about SP

and its processes. While partnerships between HEIs and schools are still mainly informal and

‘ad hoc’, there are aspects that suggest greater formality in procedures are emerging. While it

is clear that the reforms are being enacted, there is much variation in the experience of

students in schools. HEI tutors have experienced considerable intensification in their work

and this is especially the case for programme leaders and directors of SP.

There are two major elements that merit further consideration in policy and practice to foster

better implementation and adherence to the new arrangements: the process of securing school

placements and the training for CTs. There are inescapable resource implications.

10.4.2 FEEDBACK STs are observed teaching and get detailed feedback against professional criteria from their

HEI tutor on all aspects of their teaching. HEI tutor feedback tends to be detailed, criterion-

referenced, challenging, focussed and bearing on professional performance including lesson

planning and critical reflection and evaluation. There is considerable consistency across how

HEI tutors formatively assess their students. Feedback is offered orally and in writing and the

debrief provides for in-depth discussion and dialogue around pupil learning, and targets for

the ST’s own professional development. HEI feedback is highly regarded by STs. Students

are observed and evaluated by more than one tutor on their extended SP. The vast majority of

STs report that they receive guidance on a comprehensive range of aspects of professional

practice but only a minority reported receiving guidance on some broader aspects of school

life such as participating in staff meetings, dealing with parents, and cross-curricular

activities like Sport.

STs also get guidance and support from their CT which they value highly. CT guidance and

feedback is more varied in that it is not as ‘standardised’ as that of the HEI tutor since much

depends on the context and especially the available expertise and time of the CT. In general,

CT guidance is strong on planning, classroom management and teaching/learning of specific

learners and curriculum elements. It is usually informal and rarely if ever written down. The

vast majority of STs have conversations with their CTs about their progress. A key difference

in the nature of feedback from the HEI tutor and the CT, apart from formality, is that the

focus of the tutor is always the ST’s learning whereas the primary focus of the CT is pupil

learning and this partially explains the difference in orientation. HEI tutors focus on a wide

range and in considerable depth on areas of professional practice and pay attention especially

to reflective practice and students’ own evaluations and responses to earlier feedback. CTs

are very much less inclined to pay attention to STs’ developing reflective and inquiry

capacities.


187

10.4.3 OBSERVATION, TEAM-TEACHING AND REFLECTION All students have some opportunity to observe teachers teach with greater opportunity for this

in the primary sector. There are sectoral (primary/post-primary) differences with primary STs

more likely to be observed by and to team-teach with (and get feedback from) their CT.

Students value the opportunity to observe teachers and to team-teach but this experience is

very dependent on their CTs and can vary significantly from student to student. Thus it could

pose an equity issue. Team-teaching could usefully be part of a professional development programme for teachers possibly linked to other collaborative pedagogic aspects such as lesson study as described in Chapter 2. Reflection, as in the development of the reflective and critical professional, is happening

across the board on all programmes and it is a key requirement for all students. It functions as

a key mechanism for integrating theory and practice, for enhancing and moving to more

nuanced practices, for attending to and understanding learner responses, for appreciating the

role of evidence in decision making, and for beginning the action research journey as a

professional from which more than they themselves can benefit. As such it is clearly a vital

component of the initial teacher education programme and its role is recognised by students

and is highly valued by HEI tutors. CTs’ understanding of critical reflection, and how to

engage students in a structured dialogue that supports critical reflection, is not yet evident in

CTs’ practices. Students themselves believe they are over-asked in regard to reflection and

for some it is perceived as ‘overwhelming’ and a source of stress.

10.4.4 ASSESSMENT AND GRADING HEI tutors are exclusively responsible for grading and there is a reluctance on the part of

schools to share this responsibility. There isn’t a consensus, even among HEI tutors, about

the potential role of CTs in assessing/grading STs although the balance of evidence is away

from such a role currently. Summative assessment and grading is not based on individual

observed lessons but is based on a holistic judgement of the range of factors and areas of

professional practice. All assessment, formative and summative, is based on direct

observation, is performance-based with high validity. STs’ assessments/grading are also high

on reliability given the scale and emphasis on quality assurance mechanisms for maximising

the consistency of interpretations. This ensures faith in the fairness of results to students and

maximises equity. HEI tutors seek to meet and do meet CTs on visiting their STs and have

conversations about student progress. These encounters are informal. HEI tutors, CT and ST

meeting together to discuss progress is a very rare practice. Conversations between HEI

tutors and post-primary CTs are more problematic since the CT is not necessarily available.

(HEI visits are not announced in advance with the exception of one of our case study

programmes).

10.4.5 SCHOOL-HEI PARTNERSHIPS School-HEI partnerships are developing with high levels of communication and sharing of

documentation from HEIs to schools, including communication between STs and schools

about the requirements of their SP. There is evidence of some very effective practices that are

well established in some schools such as a link teacher who is the liaison person with the HEI

provider and a support person at school level for the STs; SP teams of CTs who meet

regularly about SP and the STs in the school; school policy document on SP; CT Handbooks

prepared by the HEI for schools in consultation with schools, providing guidance on various

aspects such as giving feedback and participating in observation; newsletters from the HEI to


188

its partner schools about developments of relevance to the schools; and, training sessions at

the HEI for CTs. However, in general, development of school-HEI partnership is hampered

and dominated by the challenge of securing school placements for student teachers and this is

an overarching finding of our research. Uncertainty and unpredictability about the supply of

places mean that senior HEI staff such as programme leaders and directors of SP are unable

to devote adequate time to other aspects of partnership development such as co-

teaching/team-teaching and the sharing of action research studies. HEI programme leaders

and SP Directors are at one in pleading for a national solution to this difficulty. Currently,

STs and HEIs share some of the responsibility of securing schools with STs taking the lead in

securing a school for their extended placement and the HEI sourcing schools for shorter

placements.

10.4.6 THE EXTENDED SP: 10-WEEK BLOCK AND CONTINUOUS SP Both the 10-week block and the continuous SP allow for establishing working relations with

learners and colleagues and thus to experience and sustain deeper and more meaningful

curricular activities as well as see progression in pupil learning. The extended SP allows STs

experience a range of classes in the school system. Students were unanimous in their support

for the extended experience in schools, comparing it favourably with their earlier, shorter

placements. The continuous SP is especially liked by STs. Both STs and HEI tutors are very

positive about the value of the extended placement. The extended SP is pivotal in allowing

students experience professional life across the school, including participation in cross-

curricular and cross-school activities, such as musical and sports events and trips. However,

CTs are generally not in favour of the 10-week block as it is viewed as ceding control of the

class for almost a full term. For post primary teachers, a block placement is considered

restrictive compared to the developmental process and valuable learning that can occur over

the course of a year, especially if this is a graduated experience where responsibilities are

added and supported incrementally.

10.4.7 PAYMENT Primary students, while on SP, do not get paid and tend to be precluded from taking up

positions of substitute teacher. Their HEIs are strongly opposed to this until into June when

their academic year is over. There is a tendency for post-primary students to receive payment

for some teaching in their placement school: a quarter of the STs reporting that they are paid

for teaching or doing other work in school. Some post-primary students are timetabled in

their subjects outside of their allocated quota of CT classes but do not get paid. In these cases

tutors encouraged their students to tell them about such arrangements and any pressure from

schools to teach extra hours but it seems to be a grey area. It was noted by a minority of STs

as a source of stress to them since they find it difficult to refuse to help out in schools given

the potential for securing employment in the school on completion of their programme.

10.4.8 SIGNIFICANCE OF SP TO STS AND ST CONCERNS Evidence from students themselves demonstrates that SP is a significant and positive

experience for the vast majority. It is the space where theory and practice meet for them. It is

hugely affirming and life-enhancing: it powerfully communicates to them in the most direct

way what their strengths and skills are as emerging teachers; equally, it exposes their

weaknesses but it clarifies what they need to do to overcome them; it reminds and re-affirms


189

their idealism, optimism and passion about their chosen career. The evidence shows how STs

are highly appreciative of the opportunity to participate in the life of their placement school

and the extended placement is key to this opportunity. The vast majority reported that they

feel well prepared and well supported on SP and that they contribute to the life of the school.

Students recognise the importance of planning and evaluation but they are very critical of the

scale of lesson planning and evaluating that they are required to do. Some are also critical of




that SP is overall a very intense and tiring experience. They are very conscious of the

considerable expense associated with training to be a teacher and much of the expense is

associated with SP.

10.5 ADDITIONAL ELEMENT: ILLUSTRATIVE EFFECTIVE PRACTICES The development of placement-related materials can be the seed that enables ‘partnership’

between a school and a HEI to be experienced, understood, and grown. Opportunities for

teachers, student teachers and HEI staff to talk about teaching, learning, knowing, and

knowledge in shared spaces contribute to the effectiveness of school placement by making

explicit the implicit in teaching and learning. Graduated expectations are useful in helping to

align mentoring support with the stage of development of the student teacher. HEI-based

professional learning seminars responsive to the needs of placement schools are valued by

schools and help build school-HEI relationships. Student teachers are a rich learning resource

for teacher professional learning across the continuum. If research projects are undertaken by

students in placement settings during placement, ought there be some professional

responsibility on all students to share the outcomes of their research with their placement

settings? How might the HEI showcase the finalised research projects in a way that celebrates

partnership on placement and opens up further learning potential for school-HEI-student

teacher learning? Conceptualising ‘partnership’ as webs of relational community networks

has merit in terms of understanding situated teacher learning across the continuum.

10.6 IMPLICATIONS While the new arrangements introduced by the Teaching Council have been introduced and

are bedding down in practice as shown by the evidence presented in this Report, there are

significant implications for the enactment of a more coherent and consistent approach

nationally. These implications concern the development of the partnerships that are needed

between schools and HEIs to maximize the learning potential of SP for STs. On the basis of

the evidence presented in this study the following implications merit consideration.

That a mechanism be found so all schools are part of ITE through allowing access

to STs for SP. Specifically, this would mean that all state-funded schools would

agree to give access to STs for placement and that they would co-operate in line

with the Teaching Council requirements on such aspects as observation. This

would greatly alleviate the pressure on the system in securing SPs. It may be that

the official processes of whole-school evaluations and school-self evaluations

could feature in opening up schools to this possibility.


190

That support be extended to CTs to prepare them for their role especially in

relation to offering feedback on observed teaching, providing recommendations

for improvement, and in formatively assessing and discussing student teachers’

performance. This suggestion, in particular, requires that attention be paid to

resources for training. The training of CT is entirely under-resourced and is

currently dependent on HEIs providing some opportunities for CTs to attend

meetings. If CTs are to be effective supporters of STs on placement, they need

appropriate training and ongoing opportunities to share their practice in this

regard. This is crucial in schools especially in those that do not have a tradition of

supporting STs on SP. The Dutch system (and others) whereby school-based

teacher educators straddle both school and HEI would be one aspect worth

consideration in this context. Another is the potential for clustering of schools or

cross-school collaboration for CPD. If all CTs could be released for the equivalent

of one period per week to plan and feedback with their STs, to meet with HEI

tutors, engage in some 3-way conversations with tutors and students, and engage

in professional development on the support of their STs on placement, this would

go some way towards more effective and consistent provision for STs on

placement.

The current level of variation in the experience of the ST would be reduced if the

first two implications noted here are enacted. HEIs are not in a position, nor do

they wish to be, to oblige schools to allow their students engage in such activities

as observing CTs or team-teaching or to demand that their STs are not time-tabled

for lessons outside of those of their CT, yet these are vital issues impacting the

learning of the ST. The bigger point here is that there is a need for greater clarity

about the role of the CT. There is an urgent need for interested parties to revisit

the roles and responsibilities of all the players in school-HEI partnership with a

view to greater clarity and a deeper, shared notion of what constitutes partnership

in the first place. In this regard it is vital that the partnerships enacted are

genuinely meaningful to and ‘owned’ by both parties in the partnership.

That resources be provided to allow HEIs and schools together to consider the

potential for joint inquiries. If reflective practice and an inquiry stance is to be

valued by student teachers, they need to see this enacted in their placement

schools. HEI tutors have a role in supporting this process and would be well

placed to provide the support to schools. This could be linked to induction and

ongoing teacher learning and may support the continuum of learning over the

teaching career.

That further consideration be given to the pressures on schools of the

requirements of SP, including the pressure of engaging with multiple providers

and that greater opportunity be provided for schools and HEIs to liaise and

communicate about SP, all of which are resource-dependent.

That the current national framework be revisited and revised to encourage a

consistent approach for STs but one that also has enough flexibility to be

responsive to particular needs and school contexts. With regard to the latter for

instance, some school concerns about releasing classes for the ten week block

could be mitigated by encouraging more team-teaching on the part of STs and

CTs during the block.

There is strong merit in addressing the development of school placement within

the overall continuum of teacher education. This would place school placement


191

side-by-side with Droichead and Cosán in terms of processes, structures,

resources and overall coherence in teacher education. A continuum-wide lens

would support capacity-building across the continuum of teacher education and

build on the practice of collaborative professional dialogue encouraged through

Droichead.

That a Working Group be convened to consider how greater alignment can be

obtained between the policy on SP and its enactment, bearing in mind the findings

and implications of this study. It may be that the Working Group on SP that was

established some time ago could be revitalised to develop a timeframe for the

enactment and monitoring of a framework that would address roles,

responsibilities, resources, and CPD. This group, chaired by the Teaching

Council, would need to include members drawn from key interest groups: the

Teaching Council itself, HEIs, schools, the DES and HEA. In particular, it would

need to include CTs as well as STs, i.e. representatives who were not part of the

original Working Group.


192

REFERENCES Alcorn, N. (2014) Teacher education in New Zealand 1974-2014. Journal of Education for

Teaching: International research and pedagogy, 40(5), 447-460.

Aderibigbe, S., Colucci-Gray, L. and Gray, D. (2016) Conceptions and expectations of

mentoring relationships in a teacher education reform context, Mentoring and

Tutoring : Partnership in Learning 24 (1), 8-29

Allen, J.M. (2009) Valuing practice over theory: how beginning teachers re-orient their

practice in the transition from the university to the workplace, Teaching and Teacher

Education 25,647-654.

Allen, J.M. and Wright, S.A. (2014) Integrating theory and practice in the pre-service teacher

education practicum, Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 20 (2), 136-151.

Bain, Y., Bruce, J. and Weir, D. (2017) Changing the landscape of school/university

partnership in Northern Scotland, Professional Development in Education 43 (4),

537-555.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1981) The dialogic imagination. Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin, in M.

Holquist (Ed.), C. Emerson, & M Holquist (Trans.). Austin: University of Texas

Press.

Billett, S. (2001a) Knowing in practice: reconceptualising vocational expertise. Learning and

Instruction, 11, 431-452.

Billett, S. (2001b) Co-Participation: Affordance and Engagement at Work In: T. Fenwick

(Ed.), New directions for adult and continuing education, no. 92, special issue:

Socio-cultural perspectives on learning through work(pp. 63 –72). Wiley Online

Library.

Billett, S. (2002) Toward a workplace pedagogy: guidance, participation and engagement,

Adult Education Quarterly 53, 27-43.

Bloomfield, D. (2009) Working within and against neoliberal accreditation agendas:

opportunities for professional experience, Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher

Education 37, 27-44.

Boud, D., Rooney, D. and Solomon, N. (2009) Talking up learning at work: cautionary tales

in co-opting everyday learning, International Journal of Lifelong Education, 28 (3),

325-336.

Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L. & Cocking, R.R. (Eds.). (2000) How People Learn: Brain,

Mind, Experience, and School. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

Brisard, E., Menter, I. and Smith, I. (2006) Discourses of partnership in initial teacher

education in Scotland: current configurations and tensions, European Journal of

Teacher Education 29 (1), 49-66

Buber, M. (1958). I and Thou. Edinburgh: Clarke.


193

Bullough, R. and Gitlin, A. (2010) Becoming a student of teaching New York: Routledge

Cajkler. W. and Wood, P. (2016) Adapting ‘lesson study’ to investigate classroom pedagogy

in initial teacher education: what student teachers think,, Cambridge Journal of

Education 46 (1), 1-18.

Calvo de Mora, J. and Wood, K. (2014) (Eds) Practical Knowledge in Teacher Education:

Approaches to Teacher Internship Programmes London: Routledge.

Chambers, F., & Armour, K. (2012) School–university partnerships and physical education

teacher education student learning: A fruitful division of labour? European Physical

Education Review, 18(2), 159-181.

Chambers, G.N., Tomlinson, P.D. and Roper, T.( 2006) Becoming a teacher:

Clarke, A., Triggs, V. & Nielsen, W. (2014) Cooperating teacher participation in teacher

education: A review of the literature, Review of Educational Research, 84(2), 163-

202.

Clarke, M., Lodge, A. and Shevlin, M. (2012) Evaluating initial teacher education

programmes: perspectives from the Republic of Ireland, Teaching and Teacher

Education 28(2), 141-153.

Claxton, G., and Wells, G. (2002) Learning for life in the 21st century: sociocultural

perspectives on the future of education. Oxford: Blackwell.

Cochran-Smith, M. (2006). Policy, practice, and politics in teacher education. Editorials from

the Journal of Teacher Education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Cochran-Smith, M. (2005) Studying teacher education: What we know and need to know.

Journal of Teacher Education, 56(4), 301–306.

Cochran-Smith, M. (2011). A tale of two teachers: Learning to teach over time, Kappa Delta

Pi Record, 48(3), 108-122, DOI: 10.1080/00228958.2012.707501

Cochran-Smith, M. and Lytle, S.L. (2009) inquiry as Stance: Practitioner Research for the

next Generation New York : Teachers College Press

Cochran-Smith, M., P. Piazza, and Christine Power (2013) The politics of accountability:

Assessing teacher education in the U.S. In The Educational Forum. Special Issue:

The politics of teacher education policy, ed., M. Cochran-Smith.

Cochran-Smith, M., Villegas, A.M., Abrams, L., Chavez-Moreno, L., Mills, T. and Stern, R.

(2015) Critiquing Teacher Preparation Research: An Overview of the Field, Part 2

Journal of Teacher Education 66 (2), 109-121.

Coninx, N., Kreijns, K. & Jochems, E. (2013) The use of keywords for delivering immediate

performance feedback on teacher competence development, European Journal of

Teacher Education 36(2), 164-182.


194

Conroy, J., Hulme, M. & Menter, I. (2013) Developing a ‘clinical’ model for teacher

education, Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy

39(5), 557-573.

Conway, P., Murphy, R., Rath, A. & Hall, K. (2009) Learning to teach and its implications

for the continuum of teacher education: A nine-country cross-national study.

Maynooth: The Teaching Council.

Conway, P. and Munthe, E. (2015) The practice turn: research-informed clinical teacher

education in two countries 146-163, In Vocational to Professional Education,

Educating for social welfare, Eds: J.C. Smeby and M. Sutphen, Routledge, London.

Coolahan, J. (2007) A Review Paper on Thinking and Policies Relating to Teacher Education

in Ireland Paper prepared for the Teaching Council, December 2007.

Coolahan, J. (2017) Acceptance speech for the award of Doctor of Philosophy (Honoris

Causa),12 September 2017, Dublin City University.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006) Powerful Teacher Education San Francisco: Jossey Bass

Darling-Hammond, L. (2010) Teacher education and the American future, Journal of

Teacher Education 61(½), 35-47.

Darling-Hammond, L. and Bransford, J. (2005) Preparing teachers for a changing world:

what teachers should learn and be able to do. Washington: US National Academy

of Education.

Darling-Hammond, L. and Lieberman, A. (2012) Teacher education around the world.

London and New York, Routledge.

Delors, J. (1996) Learning: The Treasure Within. Paris: UNESCO.

Department of Education and Skills (2011) Circular 0031/2011: Teacher recruitment,

registration and qualifications.

Department of Education and Skills (2011) Literacy and numeracy for learning and life: the

national strategy to improve literacy and numeracy among children and young

people, 2011-2020. Dublin: Department of Education and Skills.

Department of Education and Skills (DES) (2015) A Report on Irish Medium Educational

Provision in Gaeltacht Schools: Primary and Post-Primary Case-Studies. Dublin:

Author (The Inspectorate).

Department of Education and Skills (DES). (2011) Literacy and numeracy for learning and

life: The national literacy and numeracy strategy, 2011-2020. Dublin: Author.

Department of Education and Skills (DES). (2016) Looking at our School 2016: A Quality

Framework for Post-Primary Schools. Dublin: Author (The Inspectorate).

Dolan, A., Waldron, F. Pike, S. And Greenwood, R. (2016) Learning to teach primary

geography in the context of school placement: lessons from an all-Ireland study

European Journal of Teacher Education 39(1), 20-35.


195

Donaldson, D. (2011) Teaching Scotland's future - report of a review of teacher education in

Scotland. Edinburgh: The Scottish Government.

Donlon, E. (2017) The use of a custom-built online environment for communication with and

support of student-teachers during school placement, Teaching Education, 1-15.

Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2017.141634

Douglas, A. S. (2012) Creating expansive learning opportunities in schools, European

Journal of Teacher Education, 35(1) 3-15.

Doyle, W. (2006) “Ecological Approaches to Classroom Management.” In Handbook of

Classroom Management: Research, Practice and Contemporary Issues, edited by C.

Evertson and C. Weinstein, 97–125. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Edwards, A. (1997) Guests bearing gifts: The position of student teachers in primary school

classrooms, British Educational Research Journal, 23 (1).

Edwards, A. (1998) Mentoring Student Teachers in Primary Schools: assisting student

teachers to become learners, European Journal of Teacher Education, 21 (1), 47-62.

Edwards, A. and Collison, J. (1996) Mentoring and Developing Practice in Primary Schools:

Supporting Student Teacher Learning in Schools, Buckingham: Open University

Press.

Edwards, A. & Protheroe, L. (2004) Teaching by proxy: Understanding how mentors are

positioned in partnerships, Oxford Review of Education 30(2), 183-197.

Edwards, A., & Mutton, T. (2007) Looking forward: Rethinking professional learning

through partnership arrangements in initial teacher education, Oxford Review of

Education, 33(4), 503-519.

Edwards, A., Gilroy P., & Hartley, D. (2002) Rethinking teacher education: collaborative

responses to uncertainty. London: Routledge.

Elliott, J. G., Stemler, S.E., Sternberg, R.J., Grigorenko, E.L. & Hoffman, N. (2011) The

socially skilled teacher and the development of tacit knowledge, British Educational

Research Journal, 37(1), 83-103.

Elmore, R. F. (2006) School Reform from the Inside Out. Policy, Practice and Performance.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Eraut M (2007) Learning from Other People in the Workplace, Oxford Review of Education,

33 (4), 403-422

Eraut, M. (2004) Informal learning in the workplace Studies in Continuing Education 26(2),

247-273.

European Commission. (2007a) Communication from the Commission to the Council and the

European Parliament: Improving the quality of teacher education. Retrieved from

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52007DC0392&from=EN

https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2017.141634

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52007DC0392&from=EN

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52007DC0392&from=EN


196

Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001) From preparation to practice: designing a continuum to

strengthen and sustain teaching, Teachers College Record 103( 6), 1013-1055.

Furlong, J. (2013) Globalisation, neo-liberalism and the reform of teacher education in

England. In The Educational Forum, 77 (.1), 28-50, DOI:

Furlong, J. & Maynard, T. (1995) Mentoring Student Teachers: the growth of professional

knowledge. London: Routledge.

Furlong, J., Barton, L., Miles, S., Whiting, C., & Whitty, G. (2000). In Hagger H., McIntyre

D. (Eds.), Teacher education in transition: Re-forming professionalism?

Buckingham. UK: Open University Press.

Furlong, J., Campbell. A., Howson, J., Lewis, S., & McNamara, O. (2006) Partnership in

English Initial Teacher Education: Changing times, changing definitions. Evidence

from the Teacher Training Agency’s National Partnership Project. Scottish

Educational Review 37 (Special Issue: Teacher Education and Development), 32-45.

Gale, T. (2001) Critical policy sociology: Historiography, archaeology and genealogy as

methods of policy analysis, Journal of Education Policy, 16(5), 379-393.

Gilleece, L, Shiel, G., Perkins, R. with Proctor, M. (2009)Teaching and learning

international survey. National Report for Ireland. Dublin: Educational Research

Centre.

Gipps, C. (2002) Beyond Testing: towards a theory of educational assessment London:

Routledge.

Glenn, W. J.(2006) Model versus mentor: defining the necessary qualities of effective

cooperating teacher. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(1), 85-95.

Gleeson, J., Sugrue, C. and O’Flaherty, J. (2017) Research capacity and initial teacher

education reform: Irish experiences, international perspectives, Teaching and

Teacher Education 62, 19-29.

Gorman, A. (2017) Learning in networks through enquiry: the design, implementation and

evaluation of an online intervention to support student teachers on school placement

PhD Thesis UCC https://cora.ucc.ie/handle/10468/3974

Graham, B. (2006) Conditions for successful field experiences: Perceptions of cooperating

teachers, Teaching and Teacher Education 22, 1118–1129

Green, J.L., Camilli, G. and Elmore, P.B. (2006) Complementary methods in education

research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 123-139.

Greene, M. (1995) Releasing the imagination: essays on education, the arts, and social

change. The Jossey-Bass Education Series. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Publishers.

Grossman, P., Schoenfeld, A. and Lee, C. (2005) Teaching subject matter. In Preparing

teachers for a changing world, eds. L. Darling-Hammond and J.

Hagger, H. and McIntyre, D. (2006). Learning Teaching from Teachers: Realising the

potential of School-Based Teacher Education, Berkshire: Open University Press.

https://cora.ucc.ie/handle/10468/3974


197

Hall, K., Conway, P.F., Murphy, R., Long, F., Kitching, K., O'Sullivan, D. (2012) 'Authoring

oneself and being authored as a competent teacher'. Irish Educational Studies, 31

(2), 103-117.

Harford, J. & O' Doherty, T. (2016) The Discourse of Partnership and the Reality of Reform:

Interrogating the Recent Reform Agenda at Initial Teacher Education and Induction

Levels in Ireland. Centre for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 6(3), 37-58.

Hargadon, A. B. (2002) Brokering knowledge: linking learning and innovation.

Hargreaves, A. (2000) Four Ages of Professionalism. Teachers and Teaching, 6(2), 151-182.

Hastings, W. (2004) Emotions and the practicum: the cooperating teachers’ perspective,

Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 10 (2), 135-148.

Hattie, J. And Timperley, H. (2007) The power of feedback Review of Educational Research

77 (1), 81-112.

Higher Education Authority (HEA) (n.d.). Mater Dei Institute of Education (MDI) Strategic

Dialogue Cycle 2 Bilateral Meeting 11th September 2015. Retrieved from

http://hea.ie/assets/uploads/2017/05/MDI-Strategic-Dialogue-C2-Minute-FINAL-

updated-CLEAN.pdf

Higgins, A., Heinz, M., McCauley, V., & Fleming, M. (2013). Creating the future of teacher

education together: The role of emotionality in university-school partnership,

Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 1110-1115.

Hislop, H. (2011) Teacher Education and Ireland’s National Strategy to Improve Literacy

and Numeracy. Speech given at SCOTENS Annual Conference, Radisson Blu

Farnham Estate, Cavan 29 September 2011. Accessed at

http://scotens.org/docs/2011-Hislop-speech.pdf

Hobson, A.J., Malderez, A., Tracey, L. Homer, M., Ashby, P. Mitchell, N., McIntyre, J.,

Cooper, D., Roper, T., Chambers, G, and Tomlinson, P.D. (2009) Becoming a

teacher. teachers’ experiences of initial teacher training, induction and early

professional development. Final Report. Research Report No DCSFRR115.

University of Nottingham. Accessed December 2009 at

http://publications.dcsf.gov.uk/eOrderingDownload/DCSF-RR115.pdf

Hobson, A.J., Malderez, A., Tracey, L., Giannakaki, M.S., Pell, R.G., Kerr, K.,

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?

accno=EJ793462

http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=13496

Hopper, B. (2001) The role of the HEI tutor in ITE School-based placements. Mentoring

and tutoring: partnership in learning, 9(3), 211-222.

Hudson, P. (2010) Mentors report on their own mentoring practices, Australian Journal of

Teacher Education, 35, 7, 30-42.

Hudson, P. (2014) Feedback consistencies and inconsistencies, European Journal of

Teacher Education, 37(1), 63-73.

http://hea.ie/assets/uploads/2017/05/MDI-Strategic-Dialogue-C2-Minute-FINAL-updated-CLEAN.pdf

http://hea.ie/assets/uploads/2017/05/MDI-Strategic-Dialogue-C2-Minute-FINAL-updated-CLEAN.pdf











http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=EJ793462







198

Ievers, M., Wylie, K., Gray, C., Ní Áingléis, B., & Cummins, B. (2013). The role of the

university tutor in school-based work in primary schools in Northern Ireland and the

Republic of Irelan.. European Journal of Teacher Education 36(2), 183-199.

integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods.

INTO/Mary Immaculate College (2016) School placement: experiences, challenges and

possibilities Joint INTO-Mary Immaculate College Limerick Seminar Dublin: INTO.

INTO/St Patrick’s College, Drumcondra (2014) School placement: roles and relationships –

challenges and opportunities Joint INTO-St Patrick’s College,

Irish National Teachers Organisation (INTO). (2009) Creativity and the Arts in the Primary

School. Discussion Document and Proceedings of the Consultative Conference on

Education 2009. Dublin: Author.

JMB (2017) JMB Survey on Student Teacher Placement 2017.

Jones, M., Hobbs, L., Kenny, J., Campbell, C., Chittleborough, G., Gilbert, A., Herbert, S.,

Redman, C. (2016). Successful university-school partnerships: An interpretive

framework to inform partnership practice, Teaching and Teacher Education, 60,

108-120.

Johnston, D. (2010) ‘Losing the joy’: Student teachers’ experiences of problematic relations

with host teachers on school placement, Teacher Development: An international

journal of teachers' professional development, 14(3), 307-320, DOI:

10.1080/13664530.2010.504012

Kalaja, M. (2012) Teaching and learning in normaalikoulu, Jyväskylä Teacher Training

School. Retrieved 5th

Dec 2014 from https://www.norssi.jyu.fi/info-1.

Kellaghan, T. (2002) Preparing teachers for the 21st Century: report of the working group

on primary preservice teacher education. Dublin: Department of Education and

Science.

Kempe, A. and Nicholson, H. (2002) Developing a career entry profile. In Readings for

Reflective Teaching, ed., A. Pollard, 338-340. Continuum International Publishing

Group.

Kerin, M. & Murphy, C. (2015) Exploring the impact of co teaching on pre-service music

teachers, Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 309-323.

Kidd, W. (2012). Relational agency and pre-service trainee teachers: using student voice to

frame teacher education pedagogy, Management in Education, 26(3), 120-129.

Kilroy, L. (2016) When student teachers fail: perspectives on those in the ‘learning to teach’

partnership in the Republic of Ireland Professional Doctorate in Education Univeristy

of Nottingham

Korthagen, F. (2010) Situated learning theory and the pedagogy of teacher education:

Kotelawala, U. (2012) Lesson study in a methods course: connecting teacher education to the

field, Teacher Educator 47, 67-89


199

Kruger, T., Davies, A. C., Eckersley, B., Newell, F., & Cherednichenko, B. (2009) Effective

and sustainable university-school partnerships: Beyond determined efforts by

inspired individuals. Canberra: Teaching Australia.

Kruse, S. D., Louis, K. S. and Bryk, A. S. (1995) An emerging framework for analysing

school-based professional community, in K. S. Louis, S. D. Kruse and Associates

(Eds.), Professionalism and Community: Perspectives on reforming urban schools,

pp. 58 -76, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Kyriacou, C. & Stephens, P. (1999) Student teachers' concerns during teaching practice,

Evaluation & Research in Education, 13(1), 18-31, DOI:

10.1080/09500799908666943

Lave J., and Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity.

Cambridge University Press.

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legititmate Peripheral Participation

Cambridge University Press

Lieberman, A. and Pointer Mace, D. H. (2009) The role of 'accomplished teachers' in

professional learning communities: uncovering practice and enabling leadership,

Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15, no. 4: 459-470. doi:

10.1080/13540600903057237

Lillejord, S. & Børte, K. (2016) Partnership in teacher education – a research mapping,

European Journal of Teacher Education, 39(5), 550-563, DOI:

10.1080/02619768.2016.1252911

Little, J. W. (2012) “Professional Community and Professional Development in the Learning-

centered School.” In Teacher Learning That Matters. International Perspectives,

edited by M. Kooy and K. van Veen, 22–43. New York: Routledge.

Liu, W.C., Tan, G. C. I., & Salleh, H. (2014) Developing teacher competency through

practice in Singapore. In J. Calvo de Mora & K. R. J. Wood (Eds.), Practical

Knowledge in Teacher Education: Approaches to Teacher Internship Programs. (pp.

109-126). Abingdon: Routledge.

Long, F., Hall, K., Conway, P. F. and Murphy, R. (2012) Novice teachers as 'invisible'

learners', Teachers and Teaching, 18(6), 619-636. DOI:

10.1080/13540602.2012.746498

Lortie, D. C. (1975) The limits of socialization. School teacher: A sociological study.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lortie, D.C. (1975) Schoolteacher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Maandag, D.W, Deinum, J.F., Hofman, A., and Buitink, J. (2007) Teacher education in

schools: an international comparison. European Journal of Teacher Education. 30( 2),

151 – 173.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a913696524~db=all~jumptype=rss




200

MacBeath, J. (2007) Collaborative Approaches to Preparing and Developing Effective

Teaching: Dilemmas and Opportunities, Symposium Paper, Keynote Address 1, in J.

Whitehead (Ed.) Collaborative Approaches to Preparing and Developing Effective

Teachers: An account of the Joint UCET/HMI/STEC Symposium, Glasgow, March

2007, Occasional Paper No. 16, London: UCET.

Martin, M. (2011). Teacher Professional Development Partnership with Schools Evaluation

Report. Dublin: DCU Institute of Education (St Patrick’s Campus).

Maynard, T. (1996) The limits of mentoring: the contribution of the higher education tutor to

primary student teachers’ school-based learning, In J. Furlong and R. Smith (Eds) The

Role of Higher Education in Initial Teacher Training London: Kogan Page.

Maynard, T. (2001) The student teacher and the school community of practice, Cambridge

Journal of Education 31(1)39-52.

Maynard, T. & Furlong, J. (1993) Learning to teach and models of mentoring, in D.

Mcintyre, H. Hagger & M. Wilkin (Eds.) Mentoring: Perspectives on school-based

teacher education. London: Kogan Page.

Maynard, T. (2001) The student teacher and the school community of practice: A

consideration of 'learning as participation'. Cambridge Journal of Education, 31(1),

39-52.

Menter, I., Hulme, M., Elliot, D., & Lewin, J. (2010). Literature review on teacher education

in the 21st century. Edinburgh: Education Analytical Services, Schools Research,

Scottish Government.

McLaughlin, C., Black-Hawkins, K., Brindley, S., McIntyre, D. and Taber, K. S. (2006)

Researching Schools: Stories from a Schools-University Partnership for Educational

Research, Oxon, England: Routledge.

Merriam, S. B. (1998) Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education.

Revised and Expanded from Case Study Research in Education. San Francisco:

Jossy-Bass.

Mertens, D. M. (2005) Research and evaluation in education and psychology:

Mewborn, D. S. and Stinson, D.W. (2009) Learning to teach as assisted performance,

Teachers College Record, 109(6),1457-1487.

Miller, L. (2001) School—university partnership as a venue for professional development. In

Teachers caught in the action, eds. A. Lieberman and L. Miller, Teachers Caught in

the Action: professional development that matters. New York: Teachers College

Press.

Moore, R. (2003) Reexamining the field experiences of preservice teachers. Journal of

Teacher Education, 54, 31-42.


201

Morris, J. & Patterson, R. (2013) Around the world: The evolution of teaching as a

profession. Research report 6 (RRC): Education Series 1 - Report 2. Wellington,

New Zealand: The New Zealand Initiative.

Moore-Johnson, S. (2004) Finders and keepers: helping new teachers survive and thrive in

our schools. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Morgan, M., Ludlow, L., Kitching, K and O’Leary, M. (2010) What makes teachers tick?

British Educational Research Journal 36, 191-208.

Moyles J, & Stuart, D. (2003) Which school-based elements of partnership in initial teacher

training in the UK support trainee teachers’ professional development? In: Research

Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research

Unit, Institute of Education.

Murray, J. & Passy, R. (2014) Primary teacher education in England: 40 years on Journal of

Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy 40, 5, 492-506

Murphy, C. (2016) Coteaching in Teacher Education: Innovative Pedagogy for Excellence.

St Albans, Herts: Critical Publishing.

Ní Áingléis, B. (2009) Learning to teach in collaboration with schools. Oideas, 54(Winter),

82-101.

Ní Áingléis, B. (2012) Structured collaboration between schools, student teachers and teacher

educators. Leadership +, The Professional Voice of Principals, 67 March, 25.

NokesMiller, 102–117. New York, Teachers College Press.

Ni Aingleis, B. (2014) Perspectives of a HEI school placement tutor’ in Joint INTO-St

Patrick’s College, Drumcondra Seminar, Colleges of Education/ITE providers and

schools, School Placement: roles and relationships- challenges and opportunities.

Ní Áingléis, B., Murphy, P., & Ruane, B. (2012) Student teacher voice and school placement:

What we can learn if we listen. In F. Waldron, J. Smith, M. Fitzpatrick & T. Dooley

(Eds.), Re-imagining initial teacher education: Perspectives on transformation (pp.

307-328). Dublin: The Liffey Press.

Ní Áingléis, B., Connolly, C., Eason, G., O'Connor, G., Ó Connaill, N., Farrar, M., Slevin, P.,

& Ó Néill, S. (2012) Supporting the role of the supervising tutor on school

placement: A report for the Standing Conference on Teacher Education North and

South (SCoTENS). Armagh, Northern Ireland: SCoTENS.

Nokes, J.D. et al (2008) The paired placement of student teachers : an alternative to

traditional placements in secondary schools Teaching and Teacher Education 24,

2168-2177.

Ó Ruairc, T. (2013) Presentation to the Annual Conference of the Inspectorate, 21 March

2013.

http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED498536





202

O’Doherty, T. (2016) Concluding remarks: reflections on school placement: experiences,

challenges and possibilities 23-25, Joint INTO-Mary Immaculate College Limerick

Seminar Dublin: INTO.

O’Doherty, T. (2016) Reflections on school placement: experiences, challenges and

possibilities’, Joint INTO-Mary Immaculate College, Limerick Seminar, Colleges

of Education/ITE providers and schools, School Placement: roles and relationships-

challenges and opportunities.

O’Doherty, T. and Deegan, J. (2009) Mentors, not models: supporting teachers to be

empowered in an Irish context. Research in Comparative and International

Education, 4(1), 22-33. doi: 10.2304/rcie.2009.4.1.22

O’Donoghue T. and Whitehead, C. (2008) Teacher education in the english-speaking world.

past, present and future. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

O’Grady, S. (2016) Policy, practice and partnership: Perspectives of post-primary school-

based teacher educators in relation to school placement. Presentation at SCoTENS

Conference, Armagh, 14 October 2016.

O’Grady, S. (2017) ‘Policy, practice and partnership: An exploration of the perspectives of

post-primary school-based teacher educators in relation to school placement’.

Unpublished EdD dissertation, Dublin City University (Institute of Education).

OECD (2005) Teachers matter: attracting, retaining and developing teachers. Paris:

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

OECD (1991) Reviews of national policies for education: Ireland. Paris: Organisation for

Economic Cooperation and Development.

OECD (2005) Teachers matter: attracting, retaining and developing teachers. Paris: OECD.

OfSTED (2010) Annual Report of HMI Chief Inspector of Education 2009/10 London:

Stationery Office

Perkins, R., G. Moran, J. Cosgrove, G. Shiel (2010) PISA 2009: The performance and

progress of 15-year-olds in Ireland. Summary report. Dublin: Educational Research

Centre.

Polanyi, M. (1958) Personal knowledge: towards a post-critical philosophy. Chicago:

Chicago University Press.

Pollard, A. (2002) Readings for reflective teaching. New York: Continuum.

Pollard, A. (2008) Reflective teaching. 3rd edn. London: Continuum.

Poulou, M. (2007) Student‐teachers' concerns about teaching practice, European Journal of

Teacher Education, 30(1), 91-110, DOI: 10.1080/02619760600944993

Raiker, A. (2011) Finish university training schools: Principles and pedagogy. Bedfordshire:

University of Bedfordshire.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/rcie.2009.4.1.22

http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/rcie.2009.4.1.22


203

Reid, D. (1994) Towards empowerment: an approach to school-based mentoring, in B. Field

Research in Organizational Behavior, 24, 41-85.

Reupert, A. and Woodcock, S. (2010) Success and near misses: pre-service teachers’ use,

confidence and success in various classroom management strategies Teaching and

Teacher Education 26,6 1261-1268.

Rule, P. N. (2015). Dialogue and Boundary Learning. Rotherdam: Sense Publishers.

Rutherford, V., Conway, P. and Murphy, R. (2015) Looking like a teacher: fashioning an

embodied identity through dressage. Teaching Education, 26 (3), 325-339 DOI:

10.1080/10476210.2014.997699 .

Sadler, D.R. (1998) Formative assessment: revisiting the territory Assessment in Education

5,1, 77-85.

Sands, D. I. & Goodwin, L. D. (2005) Shared responsibility for teacher education: An

exploratory study of the match between the skills of clinical teachers and those of

their teacher candidates. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 817-828.

Sahlberg, P. (2010) The secret to Finland's success: Educating teachers. Stanford Center for

Opportunity Policy in Education - Research Brief. Stanford, CA: Education

Department, Stanford University.

Sahlberg, P, Furlong, J, & Munn, P. (2012) Report of the International Review Panel on the

Structure of Initial Teacher Education Provision in Ireland: review conducted on

behalf of the Department of Education and Skills. July 2012. Dublin: Department of

Education and Skills.

Sahlberg, P. (2007) Education policies for raising student learning: the Finnish approach.

Journal of Education Policy 22, no. 2: 147-71.

Sahlberg, P. (2011) The fourth way of Finland. Journal of Educational Change 12(2), 173-

85.

Schostak, J. F. (2002) Understanding, Designing and Conducting Qualitative Research in

Education: framing the project. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Scottish Government. (2012) Teaching Scotland’s Future – National Partnership Group:

Report to Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning. Retrieved from

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0040/00407756.pdf.

Stegman, S. F. (2007) An exploration of reflective dialogue between student teachers in

music and their cooperating teachers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 55,

65-82.

Stephens, P. (2006) Student teachers' concerns and accomplishments on main school

placements: What school mentors can learn from them, Mentoring & Tutoring:

Partnership in Learning, 5(1), 56-66, DOI:10.1080/0968465970050106

Sheridan, L. and Young, M. (2017) Genuine conversation: the enabler in good mentoring of

pre-service teachers Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 23, 6, 658-673.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2014.997699


204

Sim, C. (2010) Sustaining productive collaboration between faculties and schools. Australian

Journal of Teacher Education, 35 (5), 18-28.

Smith, E. R., & Avetisian, V. (2011) Learning to teach with two mentors: Revisiting the

“Two-worlds pitfall” in student teaching. The Teacher Educator, 46(4), 335-354.

Smith, K. (2007) Empowering school and university based teacher educators as assessors: a

school-university cooperation Educational Research and Evaluation: an

international journal on theory and practice 13(3), 279-293.

Smith, K. (2010) Assessing the Practicum in teacher education: do we want candidates and

mentors to agree? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 36, 36-41.

Somekh, B. & Lewin, C. (2005) Research Methods in the Social Sciences. London: Sage.

Somekh, B. and Zeichner, K. (2009) Action research for educational reform: remodelling

action research theories and practices in local contexts Educational Action Research

17 (1) 5-21.

Sorensen, P. (2014) Collaboration, dialogue and expansive learning: the use of paired and

multiple placements in the school practicum Teaching and Teacher Education 44,

128-137.

Stake, R. E. (1981) Case Study Methodologies: An Epistemological Advocacy. In W. W.

Welch (ed.), Case Study Methodology in Educational Evaluation. Proceedings of the

1981 Minnesota Evaluation Conference, Minneapolis: Minnesota Research and

Evaluation Centre, in S. B. Merriam (1998), Qualitative Research and Case Study

Applications in Education, Revised and Expanded from Case Study Research in

Education (p 30). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Stemler, S. E., & Sternberg, R.J. (2006) Using Situational Judgment Tests to Measure

Practical Intelligence. In J. Weekley, & R. Ployhart (Eds.) Situational Judgment

Tests, pp.107-131. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Stenhouse, L. (1975) An introduction to curriculum research and development. London:

Heinemann.

Sternberg, R. J. (1997) Successful Intelligence: how practical and creative intelligence

determines success in life. New York: Plume.

Sternberg, R.J., & Horvath, J. (Eds.). (1991) Tacit knowledge in professional practice.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Stoll, L. (2010) Connecting learning communities: capacity building for systemic change in

Designing for Leadership Growth In A. Hargreaves et al (Eds) Second International

Handbook of Educational Change Netherlands: Springer.

Sugrue, C. (1997) Complexities of Teaching: Child-Centred Perspectives. London: Falmer

Press.


205

Sugrue, S. and & Solbrekke, T.D. (2015) Policy rhetorics and resource neutral reforms in

higher education: their impact and implications? Studies in Higher Education, DOI:

10.1080/03075079.2015.1036848

Sultana, R. (2005) the initial education of high school teachers: a critical review of major

issues and trends Studying Teacher Education 24,1, 225-243.

Tan, O. S., Liu, W. C. & Low, E. L. (2012) Educational reforms and teacher education

innovations in Singapore. In. O. S. Tan (ed.), Teacher education frontiers:

International perspectives on policy and practice for building new teacher

competencies. Singapore: Cengage Learning Asia. Pp. 71-91.

The Teaching Council. (2011) Initial teacher education: Criteria and guidelines for

programme providers. Maynooth: The Teaching Council.

The Teaching Council. (2011) Policy on the continuum of teacher education. Maynooth: The

Teaching Council.

The Teaching Council. (2012) Code of professional conduct for teachers (2nd ed.).

Maynooth: The Teaching Council.

The Teaching Council. (2013). Guidelines on school placement (1st ed.). Maynooth: The

Teaching Council.

The Teaching Council. (2014) Strategic plan 2012 – 2014. A new era of professionalism:

Fás, forbairt agus foghlaim. Maynooth: The Teaching Council.

The Teaching Council. (2015) Droichead: A guide for schools 2015/2016. Maynooth: The

Teaching Council.

Ten Dam, G., & Blom, S. (2006) Learning through participation. The potential of school-

based teacher education for developing a professional identity. Teaching and Teacher

Education,22, 647-660.

Trent, J. (2013) From learner to teacher: practice, language, and identity in a teaching

practicum. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 41(4), 426-440, DOI:

10.1080/1359866X.2013.838621

Tsui, A.M.B. & Law, D.Y.K. (2007) Learning as boundary-crossing in school-university

partnership. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(8), 1289-1301.

Union of Students of Ireland (USI) (2018) Student Teachers Placement Report

http://usi.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Teachers-Placement-Report_FINAL.pdf

Ussher, B. (2010) Involving a village: Student teachers' sense of belonging in their school-

based placement. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 38(2), 103-116, DOI:

10.1080/13598661003677614

Van Velzen, C., & Volman, M. (2009) The activities of a school-based teacher educator: a

theoretical and empirical exploration. European Journal of Teacher Education, 32,

345-367.

http://usi.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Teachers-Placement-Report_FINAL.pdf


206

Van Velzen, C., Bezzina, C. & Lorist, P. (2009) Partnerships between schools and teacher

education institutes. In Swennen, A. & Van der Klink, M. (Eds) Becoming a teacher

educator. Theory and practice for teacher educators, 59-73. Dordrecht: Springer

Science+Business Media BV.

Van Velzen, C., Van der Klink, M., Swennen, A. & Yaffe, E. (2010) The induction of teacher

educators: The needs of beginning teacher educators. Professional Development in

Education, 36(1/2), 61-75.

Waldron, F. (2014) Concluding remarks, 37-38, Joint INTO-St Patrick’s College,

Drumcondra. Seminar Dublin: INTO.

Waldron, F., Pike, S., Greenwood, R., Murphy, C. and Kerr, C. (2009) Becoming a teacher:

Primary student teachers as learners and teachers of history, geography and

science: An all-Ireland study. Armagh: Centre for Cross Border Studies Standing

Conference on Teacher Education North and South, SCoTENS.

Waldron, F., Smith, J., Fitzpatrick, M. and Dooley, T. (2012) Re-imagining initial teacher

education: Perspectives on transformation. Dublin: Liffey Press.

Walsh, M. E., & Backe, S. (2013) School-University partnerships: Reflections and

opportunities. Peabody Journal of Education, 88(5), 594-607.

Wang, X.,& Wong, J.L.N. (2017) How do primary school teachers develop knowledge

through crossing boundaries in the school-university partnership? A Case Study in

China. Asia Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 45(5), 487-504.

Weiss, E.M. and Weiss, S. (2001) Doing reflective supervision with student teachers in a

professional development school culture. Reflective Practice 2, 125-154.

Wenger, E. (1998) Learning in Communities of Practice Cambridge University Press

Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002) Communities of practice and their

structural elements. In E. Wenger, R. McDermott & W. Snyder (Eds.), Cultivating

communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge (pp. 23-48). Boston:

Harvard Business Press.

White, S., Bloomfield, D. and Le Cornu, R. (2010) Professional experience in new times:

issues and responses to a changing education landscape Asia-Pacific Journal of

Teacher Education 38 (3), 181-193.

White, S., Bloomfield, D. and Le Cornu, R. (2010) Professional experience in new times:

issues and responses to a changing education landscape Asia-Pacific Journal of

Teacher Education 38, (3), 181-193.

Willegems, V., Consuegra, E., Struyven, K. and Engels, N. (2017) Teaching and Teacher

Education 64, 230-245.

Woodgate-Jones, A. (2012) The student teacher and the school community of practice: an

exploration of the contribution of the legitimate peripheral participant Educational

Review 64 (2), 145-160.


207

Yin, R. K. (1994) Case Study Research, Design and Methods (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Young, A., O'Neill, A., & Mooney Simmie, G. (2015) Partnership in learning between

university and school: Evidence from a researcher-in-residence. Irish Educational

Studies, 34(1), 25-42.

Youens, B., Smethem, L. & Sullivan, S. (2014) Promoting collaborative practice and

reciprocity in initial teacher education: realising a ‘dialogic space’ through video

capture analysis. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and

Pedagogy, 40(2), 101-113.

Zeichner, K. M. (2006) Studying teacher education programs: Enriching and enlarging the

inquiry. In C. F. Conrad & R. C. Serlin (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook for Research in

Education: Engaging ideas and enriching inquiry (pp. 79-94). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Zeichner, K. M. (2010) Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field

experiences in college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of Education

for Teaching, 61(1), 89–99.

Zeichner, K. (2014) The struggle for the soul of teaching and teacher education in the USA.

Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 40(5),

551-568.


208

APPENDIX 1

DEBRIEFS/PROFESSIONAL CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN HEI TUTORS AND STS.

SAMPLE 1

The words of the HEI tutor are in italics.

Opening questions

How do you think that lesson went? The ST refers to the good relations with the class and the

fact that she was trying to build social skills as well as the skills associated with the subject.

Yes they are learning for living. What can they take from this lesson that they can use? ST

refers to the learning outcomes for the lesson and how she thinks all of them were achieved;

refers to health and safety and the scientific content being developed. The tutor advises her to

make sure that learning outcomes are not too technical.

Scaffolding reflection

Tutor commends her on her use of peer teaching and says you already did excellently, what

would you differently? ST says she might have been more learner-focused and gives an

example of how she could have given them more jobs to do and given them more

responsibility.

Referring to particular learners by name the tutor asks what do you think you added to A’s

attainment in relation to literacy and numeracy? Discussion ensues about greater potential

for developing numeracy, how there were some missed opportunities but how literacy was

very well integrated in the lesson.

As B lacks confidence in speaking out, what kind of prompts and probes could you use to

encourage more participation from her? Who do you think benefited most from this lesson?

Much discussion here between both regarding inclusion, linked to inclusion in the broader

society. As you really need to know your learners what can you say about C as a learner? Do

you think he appreciates why he is being asked to learn this? ST refers to C and previous

lesson and incidents that occurred.

Focusing on pupil learning

How do you rate your promotion of higher order thinking in this lesson?

Did you have enough emphasis on the consolidation aspect? Enough repetition?

Did you draw on the spiral curriculum in your planning?

Take any learner you wish, let’s sayB, where is she now in her learning of this topic, what

are you going to target for her next time round?

The ST is also commended on the participative atmosphere she created and on her range of

resources especially the visuals: you used your resources exceptionally well. ST explained

how she sought to use the skills that learners themselves had as a resource while her tutor is

encouraging her to be more conscious of redirecting questions to others. Throughout the


209

tutor spends much time exemplifying and explaining aspects of effective interaction bearing

in mind the lesson just observed. The ST is also commended for her ability to monitor the

activity and the on-task participation of the class. She is invited to comment on how her

rapport with the class is so good. ST comments on her knowledge of ongoing events in their

lives e.g. forthcoming debs and the choir competition and how she is aware of their hobbies

and interests.

Focusing on ST’s own learning in SP

What difference has this SP made to you as a developing teacher? ST talks about

differentiation and long discussion ensues about how the majority in a class can seem the

same but how that is not the case, and how inclusion is hard, how it is never sorted but an

ongoing aspect in every lesson. Tutor and ST talk about the notion of learned helplessness

and he explains with examples from the lesson how she is moving towards promoting

independence in her learners.

Affirming ST’s approach

The tutor has read the student’s evaluations along with the comments of another tutor who

had also observed her teach in this setting. Towards the end of the debrief he reads out the

summary report he has written of the lesson. He also has several notes made on the lesson

which he gives the student. The summary, edited here, says excellent for every category. You

need to reflect further on attainment levels, think for instance of A and target a bit more for

adding value to that learner’s skill set. You have very effective integration of literacy and

good too on numeracy. You make good linkage with learners’ lives. Health and safety is fine.

You have an encouraging teacher presence and you are able to build confidence in learners

in the way you respond to them. You are pleasant and affirming with them. You use

questioning well, your use of anticipatory questions is especially good. You show confident

mastery of the subject yourself. You need to continue to reflect on the value added bit. You

have excellent and thorough planning and preparation. Looking at your evaluations I can say

you are very insightful about your own growth as a teacher.

Challenging and extending ST’s pedagogy and learning

Now tell me what’s going to be your target for the next week and a half?

The ST mentions inclusion and social development to which the tutor asks her where she

might go to get further advice and in particular asks her about her access to journals so she

could read more about the topic of inclusion. An article is suggested. He suggests that she

might consider taking the theme of Vygotsky’s ZPD and with reference to just one learner

make that the focus of reflection/evaluation. Because this is year four of the programme the

ST is expected to make references to literature in her file.

Concluding the dialogue

Towards the end of the debrief the tutor comments on how the ST has been responsive to the

comments of another tutor who observed her teach some weeks before, and how she too had

written very positively in the ST’s file about the teaching she had witnessed. Both the tutor

and the ST sign the detailed observational report of the lesson.


210

SAMPLE 2

The second debrief to be illustrated here is in a post-primary senior classroom in a

mainstream school and the student is on her final SP. It is not a practical lesson unlike the

above. The ST teacher has just taught an Economics lesson to fifth years and has been

observed by her tutor who has made extensive notes which the student will get at the end of

the debrief. As in the example above, there is much dialogue and information sharing about

the SP but our description here attends mostly to the focus of the discussion which is led in

the main, as in the first example, by the HEI tutor.

Opening questions

How is the placement going generally?

How do you find moving between your two subjects?

Now how do you think that class went? The ST refers to how the pupils need to believe in

themselves more and how if they know it’s higher level they say they don’t need it. She says

they are improving.

Focussing on pupil learning

What is your evidence for better learning for the fact that you think they are improving? ST

says how students were good at talking to each other in their small groups, how they

responded well to her questioning, how they were contributing, and remained on-task.

That is a good feeling to have about the lesson. And I think what you say is very valid but I

might have some suggestions for you as well.

Scaffolding reflection

If you teach that lesson again what would you change? How would you make it more

effective? ST refers to managing the white board better. Long discussion about classroom

management. I think your pacing was really good. You had a good elastic task for them that

stretched some of them really well and all could have a go and learn from it. Your structuring

of it was good but I will make some suggestions on that too. The tutor discusses other

strategies with the student.

Do you think the pitch of the lesson was right? Were some actually capable of a bit more

challenge? What spots can you identify that would allow for this?

We can talk about your subject knowledge in a minute.

Affirming ST’s approach

You were very positive in your interactions with them and that was very good. I think those

students were better today for you than they were last time. They were very responsive to you

and wanted to do it for you, you should take that as a complement from them, you were able

to motivate and enthuse them and I’m very happy with that side of things.

Challenging and extending ST’s pedagogy

In your planning, there are some gaps. The structure of the lesson is fine but there were spots

where you need to insert more details about the subject matter and how you plan to develop

those particular concepts. Your resource is supposed to be above and beyond the book. You

must go beyond the textbook even more than you are doing. You need your plan to show how


211

you are doing this, it needs to be better than this. You need to get more depth on that

scientific /technical concept, you need to drill down a lot more. Did you cease all

opportunities to drill down into that content?

Your activities and focus on independent learning are fine but don’t forget recall, make sure

you get that balance right. You were a bit casual on the recall and checking up – regardless

of the standard of answering you still need to recap and sum up.

There were two students who seemed to me to be struggling with the textbook and getting the

message. This is a literacy issue and you need to think about that a bit more. These same two

didn’t engage fully all the time so you need to think about their needs. The smaller the group

the easier it is to do this so I know this is challenging in a big class like this.

You have made some links in your planning to previous lessons you did on this but in the

lesson itself you really ought to remind them how what they did before, you need to make the

link, help with the progression of their learning so they can see the relevance better. Tutor

and ST talk about examples.

Probing for evidence of pupils’ learning

How do you know if they really know what you taught them? There is a lack of detail here in

your file. And in the lesson you could have been more probing in your questioning and you

could have followed up a bit more on key responses they were making (tutor gives an

example). In relation to assessment for learning, there is no silver bullet you need to keep

trying out new things but you should monitor the chatter just a little more so they are

genuinely staying on task in their groups.

You could use silence better – you didn’t use a ‘hands up’ well throughout since you went for

that strategy. How would you sell that to them, do you need to tell them why you want them to

put their hands up? It’s to help you tailor your teaching. Really it’s a form of differentiation

and it could reduce the level of chatter. It might work but you have to sell it to them, they

need to understand why you are doing certain things and why you are asking them to behave

in specific ways. You need to help them understand that all your strategies are designed to

help them learn, how hands up can be a useful strategy, it is not childish.

Focussing on critical reflection

How does this lesson compare with others you have done?

And in relation to this lesson, if you handed me this plan would I have any sense of what

content I should teach, the development of it? Could I take the plan and deliver it with those

examples? You have lots of good ideas and detail in here but it is a bit limited in relation to

the built in progression in learning of the lesson.

The tutor moves to discuss the student’s evaluations where they have to write about two

significant events and to discuss what made them significant in terms of their own learning.

The evaluation/reflection is to focus on how the student felt while the event was happening,

feelings after the lesson, and personal beliefs and assumptions surrounding the critical

incident. In this the ST is encouraged to look beyond the immediacy of the classroom.

The tutor finally moves to the written evaluative commentary she has produced for the

student which is written in triplicate, the top copy kept by the student in her file. A summary

is offered in relation to personal communication with the class which is deemed to be very


212

good, explanation and subject knowledge are deemed to be in need of further attention, and

the planning is deemed to be in need of greater attention to content and to have more depth.

The tutor invites the ST to read it all and think about whether there is anything missing or

anything else she would like to talk about and in particular whether the report is reflective of

the conversation they have just had. This happens and both sign.

CONCLUSION In selectively focusing in on the key content of those debriefs/professional conversations,

much of the social interaction and extended discussion of points is edited out and while the

italics contain the actual words of the tutor, questions are bunched here without the inclusion

of the ST’s responses and further extended dialogue and the student was highly involved and

interactive throughout about her experience and decision-making in the lesson.

It is important to emphasise that in both these examples relations between tutors and students

were positive, warm and dialogic. While the tutor led the conversation, s/he did not dominate

it. Interestingly in the second one described here the ST said to her tutor at the end ‘I’m tired

after that now, there is so much’!

Finally, it is noteworthy that in Droichead these de-briefs are referred to as ‘professional

conversations’ (The Teaching Council, 2015). In the interests of obtaining better alignment

across elements of the continuum in teacher education, the use of common terminology,

where appropriate, would be helpful. In this regard, ‘professional conversation’ as a more

precise term might usefully replace ‘debrief’ in initial teacher education discourse.


213

ENDNOTES i http://www.gtcs.org.uk/about-gtcs/about-gtcs.aspx

ii https://www.bcteacherregulation.ca/AboutUs/AboutUs.aspx

iii http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_11019_01

iv http://www.trb.wa.gov.au/Professional_conduct/Legislation/Pages/default.aspx v http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2012/86/introduction/made

vihttp://www.gtcs.org.uk/registration/qualified-outside-of-scotland/important-policies-

teachers-qualified-outside-scotland.aspx vii

http://www.gtcs.org.uk/about-gtcs/history-of-GTCS.aspx viii

http://www.oph.fi/english/about_fnbe

ix http://www.nd.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/122000/Professional-Exp-1-Primary-

2014.pdf xhttps://www.norssi.jyu.fi/info-

1/Teaching%20and%20teaching%20practices%20in%20normaalikoulu%202012.pdf xi http://www.nd.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/122000/Professional-Exp-1-Primary-2014.pdf

xii http://www.gtcs.org.uk/home/student-placement-system.aspx xiii http://www.aitsl.edu.au/initial-teacher-education/supervising-preservice-teachers xiv

https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/default-document-library/final-report-spt-program-review-

(web).pdf?sfvrsn=b0beec3c_0

http://www.gtcs.org.uk/home/student-placement-system.aspx

http://www.aitsl.edu.au/initial-teacher-education/supervising-preservice-teachers

School Placement in Initial Teacher Education...School Placement in Initial Teacher Education...

Documents

Transcript of School Placement in Initial Teacher Education...School Placement in Initial Teacher Education...